1. On February 7, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission applied for a review of unfair dismissal C between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The plaintiff is a corporation that is established on October 1, 1969 and is engaged in financial business, etc. by ordinarily employing approximately 150 workers.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed on August 1, 1994 as a member of the D Association, and served on June 1, 2007 as the Plaintiff’s Union. From February 3, 2015, the Intervenor served as the site store of the Plaintiff’s Sung Branch (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Branch”).

On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and determined disciplinary dismissal against the Intervenor on the grounds of the following disciplinary reasons (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) against the Intervenor while the Intervenor was present at the meeting, and sent the said matters to the Intervenor by content-certified mail on August 11, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). On August 10, 2017, the date of the details of the disciplinary action, B, the site location B, who is responsible for disciplinary dismissal, requested a loan (3,00,000 won) to secure forests and fields located in Pyeongtaek-gun in Gyeonggi-do (a loan solicitor) from E on July 2016 while taking charge of credit business. - On August 30, 2016, the Intervenor violated the service regulations by receiving money and valuables from the borrower (interested party) in relation to the business from the customer (interested party) by accepting money and valuables in relation to the business of the lending-related party (interested party) in the course of the on-site investigation of the security, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the dismissal in this case is unfair.

On October 30, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action are deemed to be justifiable, but the disciplinary action is excessive.”

On December 8, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on February 7, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). (No dispute exists over the ground for recognition.)