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

A. The Plaintiff is established pursuant to the Community Credit Cooperatives Act and runs a financial business with 12 full-time workers, and the Intervenor joined the Plaintiff on December 2, 1996 and served as a third-class regular manager.

B. On June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff referred the Intervenor to the Disciplinary Committee and dismissed him/her from his/her position on the grounds of non-compliance with the audit, interference with management, and acquisition of unfair profits.

C. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff, following a resolution by the Disciplinary Committee, removed the Intervenor from office (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds of the grounds of the grounds for the disciplinary reasons as delineated below (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”).

Article 46 subparag. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11 of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of the Community Credit Cooperatives and Articles 3 and 5 of the Regulations, which violate Article 3 and Article 5 of the Regulations on the Regulation on the Personnel Management of the Community Credit Cooperatives, and Article 1 subparag. 2 and 2 subparag. 6 of the Regulations on the Ethics of the Officers and Employees of Community Credit Cooperatives.

D. On July 17, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff dismissed it on July 31, 2015.

E. On August 5, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the above removal from position and the removal from position were unfair, and applied for remedy to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 2, 2015. On October 2, 2015, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission was legitimate, and the instant removal from position was recognized as the grounds for disciplinary action, but only accepted the application for remedy against unfair dismissal by deeming that the instant removal from position was an abuse of the discretionary authority.

F. The Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on February 4, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion intervenor is class 2 after failing to pass the qualifying examination for the executive officer.