1. On November 8, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that employs 56,000 full-time workers and engages in automobile manufacture and sales business by employing 50,000 full-time workers, and the Plaintiff is a person who was enrolled in the Intervenor Company on June 3, 2002 and served as an agent for vehicle sales.

B. On March 7, 2012, the Intervenor held a disciplinary committee against the Plaintiff, and received money and valuables of approximately KRW 8,700,000 from the Plaintiff to July 2010 (the 11st share of a competitor) by selling the 16th share of a competitor (the 11 share of a competitor) (the sale of a competitive vehicle). ② The 1.6 million share of the 1.6 million share of the 1.6 billion share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 1.6 days' share of the 3 days' share of the 13.4 days' share of the 1.3 days' share of the 1.3 days' share of the dismissal).

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

On May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal was unfair, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 17, 2012, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the instant dismissal was justifiable.

On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff, dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. On November 8, 2012, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case was justifiable.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 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 part concerning the sale of a competitor’s vehicle is recognized as the fact that the Plaintiff sold the 11st price of the competitor’s vehicle.