A. The Plaintiff is a juristic person established on September 4, 1963 by the former Act on the Establishment of Related Associations of Persons Eligible for Military Protection (amended by Act No. 1389, Aug. 7, 1963) and employs approximately 1,00 full-time workers, and is engaged in the business for mutual aid and friendship among the members, the business for self-support of the members, and the business for self-support of the members. 2) The Intervenor Intervenor A (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered the Dong Branch on April 1, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “D Branch”) and entered the Dong Branch on April 1, 2008, and the Intervenor B was the head of the general affairs division; and the Intervenor was the head of the guidance division on May 1, 2010, who was affiliated with the Plaintiff Branch and the head of the office of the E Hospital’s funeral hall entrusted by the D branch (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”).

B. On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor B on the grounds of “occupational Embezzlement and Breach of Trust” and “occupational Embezzlement and Misappropriation, leakage of confidential information, verbal abuse against employees, and assault against the Intervenor,” respectively. 2) On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor C on the grounds of “Occupational Embezzlement and Misappropriation, misappropriation, theft of job-related documents, and concealment of transaction specifications.”

C. On February 17, 2014, the first inquiry tribunal of the D Regional Labor Relations Commission asserted that the instant dismissal or dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the D Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on April 15, 2014, the D Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy by the Intervenor A for unfair dismissal on the ground that there was no ground for disciplinary action against the Intervenor A, and that the Intervenor B and C were excessive disciplinary action against the Intervenor B, and that “the instant dismissal or dismissal is unfair. The Plaintiff would have paid the Intervenor the amount equivalent to the wages that the Intervenor could have received during the period of dismissal and return to the original position, and paid to the Intervenor the amount of wages that the Intervenor could have received during the period of dismissal.”

Gyeongbuk-do.