A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff on July 26, 199 and served as a driving engineer belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

B. On November 27, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) held a Disciplinary Committee on the Intervenor on December 7, 2012; and (b) on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “In accordance with Article 93.1 of the Working Conditions for Local Employment Personnel (LCLLLLLd Stffing Policy), if the evaluation of the performance of duties is dissatisfied with (as explained by the work manager) or if there is no improvement after the warning of 3, the dismissal may be taken into account. The Intervenor was given a warning of 3 times due to the Intervenor’s failure to expect on July 6, 2011; (b) on June 15, 2012, and November 20, 2012.”

C. On December 17, 2012, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal related to the dismissal of the instant case with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission”), and on February 12, 2013, the Seoul Central Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, the disciplinary action is appropriate, and the disciplinary procedure is legitimate” (hereinafter “decision to dismiss the instant application”).

On February 22, 2013, an intervenor filed an application for review of the decision to dismiss the instant case with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Labor Relations Commission”) (central 2013da178), and on May 16, 2013, Central Labor Relations Commission recognized the grounds for disciplinary action.

If an intervenor fails to prepare for duties as a driver or if he/she fails to arrive at the destination in a timely manner due to lack of ability to perform his/her duties, such acts may be less severe in light of the unique characteristics of the Embassy.

However, considering the 14-year period of employment of the intervenor, this situation seems to have been continuously repeated, and it is also unreasonable to conclude that the intervenor has delayed time intentionally.