2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 154,494.

A. The parties concerned are companies established on March 2, 2010 and engaged in the manufacture and sales of reagents related to biotechnology.

On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant and worked as the vice president of the Strategic Planning Department.

B. On November 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) held a meeting of the personnel committee (the chairperson: representative director C); (b) passed a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff unfairly withdrawns KRW 400 million from the company’s funds (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action”); and (c) copied and leaked the company confidential data without permission (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action”); and (d) notified the Plaintiff on November 20, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal.” The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant dismissal, and filed an application for reexamination with the Defendant. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant held a review personnel committee to maintain the existing decision, and notified the Plaintiff of the same content on December 8, 2014.

C. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the instant dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On March 17, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is a worker under the Labor Standards Act, but the ground for remedy is recognized as having been, and there is a defect in the disciplinary procedure and the disciplinary procedure.” On April 23, 2015, the Defendant dissatisfied with the application, filed an application for remedy with the National Labor Relations Commission on April 23, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Defendant’s application for reexamination on July 7, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision for retrial”).

(2) On July 7, 2016, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s claim on the same ground as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission’s determination, which was subject to revocation of the Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission’s adjudication.

The defendant is dissatisfied with the above judgment and the Seoul High Court 2016Nu6005.