2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant is a company that employs approximately 20,000 workers at a number of domestic and foreign points, and operates air transportation business, etc. (hereinafter “participating company”). The Plaintiff was working for the Intervenor company from January 7, 1985 to the time of dismissal as seen below. The position at the time of retirement was the Busan Passenger Service Branch (hereinafter “instant branch”). The Intervenor was the head of the operation support team of the Busan Passenger Service Branch (hereinafter “instant branch”).

B. On May 27, 2014, the Intervenor Company, following a deliberation by the Central Disciplinary Committee more than twice, on the grounds that “the Intervenor made the other party feel sexual humiliation and fear by speaking and doing sexual harassment on several occasions with two female employees belonging to the Intervenor Company individually, so that the other party feel sexual humiliation and fear.” Date of the recommendation. May 12, 2014: May 12, 2014

D. Within seven (7) days, notice of the result of the Central Disciplinary Action was sent to the effect that it shall be removed in accordance with the rules of employment when the employee was not submitted.

C. The Plaintiff’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal was defective by the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 8, 2014; and the Plaintiff’s application for remedy against the dismissal dismissal under the same year.

9. On November 1, 198, the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the said initial inquiry tribunal, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on December 4, 199

(2) The grounds for the retrial of this case are as follows. (3) The grounds for the retrial of this case are as follows: (4) The grounds for the retrial of this case are as follows; (4) the grounds for the retrial of this case

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The procedural illegality of the proceeding against the Plaintiff of the Intervenor Company, as well as the subsequent removal from office (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”).

As a substantial dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, the intervenor company must meet the requirements for written notification as stipulated in the above provision.