2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff was established on February 7, 1980 and used 50 full-time workers in Gyeongnam Development-gun C, and the Plaintiff is a company that carries on passenger transport business by using 50 full-time workers, and the Intervenor was employed by the Plaintiff as a driver on June 10, 2008.

1. Two weekends: To submit a weekend to the end of March 9, 2012 without having two passengers aboard at the death cancer rest area, and to the end of August 25, 2012, on the basis of the fact that the occurrence of damage to the company as a civil petition by making the passengers getting out of the train during operation on August 25, 2012: to be absent without permission on March 23, 2009; to be paid in advance an annual allowance by mutual agreement that the annual leave should not be used on March 23, 2009; to be paid in advance at the same time with four persons, including B, etc. on June 20, 2013; to be absent without permission, and to be present at the Democratic Labor Education: Embezzlement on June 3, 2013: Embezzlement of public funds received from the passenger from the D vehicle on June 19, 2013.

B. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor based on Article 65(3) and (4) of the Rules of Employment as grounds for disciplinary action, “two cases at the end of time, absence from office without permission, or embezzlement of public funds” as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On August 2, 2013, the intervenor asserted that the dismissal of the instant case was unfair, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. The District Labor Relations Commission of the first instance accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case was unfair.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the initial trial tribunal of the instant case with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the grounds for disciplinary action on December 10, 2013, and even if recognized, the case was determined by the Local Labor Relations Commission which accepted the application for remedy, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the grounds that the dismissal of unfair dismissal was caused by the imposition of disciplinary action.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, and evidence Nos. 2 and 3.