A. On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor joining the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) as a technical research institute and served as a member of the technical research institute.

B. On June 7, 2016, the Intervenor Company held a personnel committee to decide on dismissal against the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff on June 7, 2016 that the Plaintiff was dismissed as of June 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff committed an extremely unfair act against the company or another person under Article 84(14) of the Rules of Employment” was committed with diverse verbal sexual harassment against several persons, and that the Plaintiff was dismissed as of June 8, 2016 on the ground that “the instant dismissal was made upon the occurrence of sexual harassment in the workplace under Article 95(2) of the Rules of Employment.”

C. On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, but was dismissed on September 8, 2016.

On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but was dismissed on January 3, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that: (a) the Intervenor did not fully state what misconduct the Plaintiff committed on the notice of attendance and the notice of dismissal issued by the Intervenor Company to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff was dismissed without knowing it.

Therefore, the dismissal of this case is null and void because it constitutes a violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

② The Plaintiff did not have committed an extremely unfair act against its employees, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff committed sexual harassment.

Even if the plaintiff's sexual harassment is recognized, the reexamination decision of this case applied Article 95 of the Rules of Employment that did not appear in the notice of dismissal to determine the legitimacy of dismissal of this case.

(3) The personnel committee;