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

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that was established on September 18, 2002 and ordinarily employs approximately 1,700 workers and engages in multi-family housing management business.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff on May 14, 2014 and served as an electrical employee.

On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the grounds of “the failure to comply with the electrical business instruction, delay of work, failure to provide labor, and the occurrence of sexual humiliation to other employees.”

C. The Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 14, 2018, asserting that “the dismissal of the Intervenor on January 12, 2018 by the Plaintiff is unreasonable.”

On July 27, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy on the ground that “the failure to perform duties, delay of duties, and neglect of duty among the grounds for disciplinary action against an intervenor is recognized, but the statement of sexual harassment (not causing sexual humiliation to other employees) is not recognized, and the dismissal of the intervenor against the intervenor is excessive and unreasonable.”

On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On December 7, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the above request for review on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.”

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

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for reexamination of this case did not recognize the fact of sexual harassment against C by unfairly rejecting the credibility of the specific statement of C, a victim of sexual harassment.

Considering the content of the Intervenor’s sexual harassment and the degree of damage to the victim, a disciplinary decision on dismissal of the instant case is not excessive.

Therefore, the decision of review of this case is unlawful.

B. The Plaintiff is performing the business of managing the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment site (hereinafter “instant site”) from July 14, 2009.

(e).