2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. On December 30, 2004, the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor”) (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is an incorporated foundation established with the aim of developing policies suitable for regional circumstances through comprehensive research on various fields related to family women in Gyeonggi-do and employs approximately 60 full-time workers.

B. The Plaintiff served as C of the welfare women’s office in Gyeonggi-do, and retired honorary on December 2016, and on February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor’s corporation and served as the head of the management planning office.

C. On September 21, 2017, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on September 21, 2017 that the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff as of September 30, 2017 on the ground that the Intervenor’s act, such as the Plaintiff’s right of allocation of duties and personnel rights to the president, the Plaintiff’s prior notice of specific actions and notification of rejection of budget execution to restrain the Plaintiff’s reappointment, was in violation of the Service Regulations of the Intervenor, Article 12, 13, and 22 of the Code of Conduct for Officers and Employees, and Article 8 of the Code of Ethics.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”) D.

On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the instant disciplinary dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On December 14, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for remedy is deemed to seriously undermine business order and seriously impair the order of the workplace in violation of the service regulations, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was in deviation from the scope of the disciplinary authority, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for remedy falls under a cause for removal or dismissal of a heavy disciplinary person.

E. On January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission for reexamination.

On March 15, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant retrial ruling”). (In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, all pleadings are made.