1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The details and details of the disposition are established on December 19, 2003 by the Industrial Education Enhancement and Industry-Academia-Research Cooperation Promotion Act and the school juristic person D's articles of incorporation, and it is a juristic person in charge of the affairs concerning A University Industry-Academic Cooperation by employing approximately 35 full-time workers in E in the original state

Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed as a contractual worker on October 1, 2005, and was employed as a full-time employee on September 1, 2007, and worked in the business incubator. The Intervenor C was employed as a contractual worker on March 12, 2012, and was converted into a fixed-term contract worker on May 1, 2012. From March 1, 2013, the non-contractual worker was employed as a contracting worker on a contract basis as a creative planning team and on-the-job training center, business start-up education support center, and a cooperative social and economic support center.

On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff took disciplinary action against the Intervenor B on the ground of “violation of the duty to hold concurrent offices” on the ground that the Intervenor C violated the duty to hold concurrent offices and used the Plaintiff’s official seal without permission.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). On April 9, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against the instant dismissal with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on June 3, 2015, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s violation of the duty to hold a concurrent position, but the amount of disciplinary action is excessively harsh.”

On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 9, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1, 30 evidence, Eul 3-6 evidence, and the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the overall purport of the pleadings, despite the prohibition of concurrent holding of office, the intervenors were in violation of the duty to hold concurrent office by acting as a director or representative director of another corporation.

In addition, the Intervenor C used the Plaintiff’s official seal on July 31, 2014 without the approval of the Director General.