1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On November 1, 2015, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) as the head of the Technology Commercialization Team.

B. An intervenor conducted an internal audit from June 13, 2016 to June 15, 2016, and discovered the fact that the Plaintiff requested a separate company website services even though the maintenance and repair period remains, and that the Plaintiff made improper execution of the project cost by paying the service cost even if the said services were not completed.

C. On August 16, 2016, an intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff, and opened a disciplinary committee on October 12, 2016, and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff for the following reasons. In accordance with the above resolution, on October 14, 2016, the intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff from his position, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff for the following reasons.

(hereinafter) The reasons for the instant disciplinary action are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s removal from office (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”); and (b) the Plaintiff’s removal from office (hereinafter “instant removal disposition”) conducted construction work on the B website among C projects, and budget for the project for which the budget overlap and progress are not conducted; and (c) whether the reported document forgery, etc. is unlawful,

1. Where it violates the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the regulations of the company;

2. When he/she breaches or neglects an official duty;

3. When he has committed an act impairing the reputation of the company.

4. To notify the removal under Article 68 of the Regulations because it appears to fall under the time when the company has caused property damage by intention or gross negligence.

D. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal order was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision of dismissal from the North Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 14, 2017, but the application for reexamination was dismissed on April 25, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). The grounds for recognition are as follows.