2. The costs of litigation, including the part arising from the defendant's participation, are all assessed against the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit organization established pursuant to the National Sports Promotion Act in around 1953 and employs 185 full-time workers, and engages in the management of franchise sports organizations, management of A registered players, entrusted operation of workplace sports teams, etc.

An intervenor is a person who joined the plaintiff's organization on February 1, 1986 and served as the head of the (Game) operation division from November 23, 2009.

B. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee for the Intervenor’s selection process and neglected to supervise the settlement of subsidies from the Ski Association. The Plaintiff made a conditional decision of dismissal on the ground that the Intervenor was unfairly involved in the process of the Intervenor’s selection, and that the Intervenor did not resign within one month. The Intervenor did not submit a resignation notice by April 30, 2012, and worked for the Plaintiff’s organization without submitting a resignation notice.

Accordingly, on April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor.

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

On May 11, 2012, an intervenor asserted that the dismissal of the instant case was unfair and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 9, 2012, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”), the grounds for partial dismissal of the instant case were complete, and the remainder of the grounds for the disciplinary action is recognized, but it was determined that the dismissal of an intervenor was excessive, and received the Intervenor’s application.

On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal and filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. On November 5, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the grounds similar to the first inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The intervenor in relation to the statute of limitations on disciplinary action is unjust in selecting ASEAN as the player belonging to the plaintiff.