2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation established by an incorporated association C (hereinafter “C”) with the contribution of property, which employs five regular workers and carries out C’s support business, etc.

After entering into an employment contract with the Plaintiff on September 13, 2004, the intervenor was transferred to C on March 16, 2009 while working for the Plaintiff. On January 1, 2014, the intervenor was transferred to the Plaintiff as the head of the Plaintiff’s work division.

B. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff’s Secretary D directed the intervenors to participate in the meeting of the board of directors by setting the relevant materials of the board of directors.

However, the intervenor refused D's instructions and did not attend the meeting of the board of directors.

(hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 1". C.

In around 2016, the Intervenor registered E as a “director” in the Plaintiff’s register of the Plaintiff’s chief director, but inside the Plaintiff refers to E as a “chief director.”

The Plaintiff’s accounting data, such as a written resolution on expenditure and withholding receipt related to E’s performance of duties, were provided to C without obtaining approval from E and D.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2” and “the instant Disciplinary Grounds” collectively refer to the instant misconduct.

On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the personnel committee for the Intervenor would be held on the 10th of the same month on the ground of the instant misconduct.

E. On July 10, 2017, the personnel committee held on July 10, 2017 resolved to dismiss an intervenor on the ground of the instant misconduct, and the Plaintiff notified the intervenor that he was dismissed as of August 18, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). (f) On July 27, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff.

However, the review personnel committee held on August 17, 2017 rejected the Intervenor's request for review.

G. The Intervenor asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on August 22, 2017.

Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on October 2017