1. On July 8, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central decision on July 8, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The plaintiff of the retrial decision is a legal entity that operates software development and sales business using 100 full-time workers, and the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") is a person who was employed and worked for the plaintiff on May 11, 2009.

B. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff took disciplinary action against the Intervenor based on the grounds for the disciplinary action and the relevant provisions as follows.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). Disciplinary Reason (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason”)

1. Performance on August 9, 2013, 13, and R&D General Headquarters (R&D 1001, 19 September 19, 201, on the part of participants, of PC’s HD illegal extraction and removal of PC, which are computer equipment within the company, on the part of participants;

2. The Personnel Management Regulations, the Personnel Management Committee Regulations, and the Security Management Regulations, based on absence from work without permission from December 3, 2013 to January 7, 2014 (hereinafter “Ground 2”);

C. The Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff was subject to unfair dismissal on December 3, 2013 and January 8, 2014 to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Labor Relations Commission”), and filed an application for remedy.

On March 31, 2014, Seoul District Court accepted an application for remedy against dismissal as of January 8, 2014, on the ground that “No dismissal as of December 3, 2013 is made. In the case of dismissal as of January 8, 2014, the grounds for disciplinary action shall be deemed all, but a disciplinary action shall be determined.”

Accordingly, only the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “China”), and the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on July 8, 2014 on the ground that “the dismissal of the Plaintiff on January 8, 2014 is deemed to be a disciplinary decision.”

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”), which is without dispute, written evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Nos. 1 through 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and whether the entire purport of the instant decision on reexamination is legitimate, the intervenor’s assertion on whether the instant decision on reexamination was legitimate has repeatedly and habitually taken out hard disks on several occasions, as well as the Plaintiff’s related thereto.