2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor”) is a corporation that is established for the purpose of contributing to the realization of cultural welfare of senior citizens and employs 80 full-time workers and engages in cultural facility management and operation business.

On March 15, 2007, the Plaintiff entered the Foundation as an intervenor and served as the head of the overall team for operation.

B. On July 24, 2017, the Intervenor’s Foundation notified the Plaintiff of dismissal on the same day on the grounds that “the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine for the obstruction of performance of official duties by forging private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, or by fraudulent means on April 6, 2017.”

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) C.

On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

Accordingly, on January 3, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for dismissal of the instant case were subject to criminal punishment, so the period of prescription, counting from the time when criminal punishment was imposed, does not impose disciplinary punishment, and is also appropriate to take disciplinary action.”

On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission and filed an application for reexamination.

On April 2, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 7 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was that the act of corruption related to the fabrication of documents, which is the ground for dismissal, was committed around 2010, and three years have already passed since the statute of limitations for disciplinary action was imposed.

The criminal punishment provided for in Article 34(1)5 of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Intervenor Foundation (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment”) can be deemed as a wrongful act in itself.