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

A. The Intervenor was established on August 28, 200 and employed approximately 187 full-time workers and engaged in IT service business. On January 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered as the Intervenor’s marketing team leader who supports the SI (SI (system integration and information system building business) and was engaged in the business of selling “legal management system” from July 1, 2012 while engaging in planning and support business for the revitalization of external business.

The plaintiff was employed to another person while in office without the permission of the intervenor.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disciplinary ground.” The Plaintiff neglected to proceed to the session in accordance with the rules of the Intervenor, or revealed false facts.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Disciplinary Action No. 2”). Although giving an opportunity several times, there was no business performance, it is difficult to expect that the Plaintiff will have business performance.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”). (b)

On July 4, 2013, an intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the grounds of the grounds of the grounds for disciplinary action (the grounds for disciplinary action of this case, including the following, referred to as “each of the grounds for disciplinary action”).

C. On November 25, 2013, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy against the above dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission only constituted grounds for disciplinary action against the instant case. The dismissal of the Plaintiff solely on the ground of such ground constitutes abuse of the right of disciplinary action, thereby citing the Plaintiff’s application for remedy.

The intervenor appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission ruled to dismiss the application.

Although the intervenor filed a lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court seeking the revocation of the above judgment of retrial, the Daejeon District Court (2014Guhap101339) rendered a judgment dismissing the intervenor's claim on January 8, 2015, based on the following: (a) although each of the instant grounds for disciplinary action is recognized (only some of the grounds for the second disciplinary action is not recognized) and the intervenor abused or abused the authority of disciplinary discretion.