1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,270,650 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from November 13, 2018 to February 12, 2019.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a legal entity that establishes and operates a C college, and the plaintiff was employed as the defendant's employee on September 1, 199 and served as the office administrative office of C college.

On April 9, 2015, the Defendant, who was subject to disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, was holding the Employee Disciplinary Committee. The said Disciplinary Committee recognized the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the following day: “Non-record of the system for management of good attendance, refusal of transfer of duties, refusal of watchkeeping service, direct and continuous official (industry-Academic Cooperation Director), failure to instruct the head of the department in charge of equipment, destruction of relevant systems, frequent Mabling among the members of the school (referred to as verbal violence, abusive and violent acts to teachers)” and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff as of May 1, 2015; and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff thereof on the 23th of the same month.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”). The Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and filed a request for remedy with the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission on July 28, 2015.

On September 23, 2015, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff and rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's request for remedy because the disciplinary action is reasonable.

On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under the Ministry of Labor No. 2015 No. 1108.

On January 28, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission recognized certain grounds for disciplinary action among the grounds for disciplinary action, and rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination based on the determination that the grounds for disciplinary action recognized against the Plaintiff are appropriate.

On May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the said decision on reexamination as Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap2113, and was sentenced by the said court to revoke the said decision on reexamination.

The reason is that the disciplinary dismissal of this case is decided by the disciplinary committee including a disqualified disciplinary member, and is defined in the procedure.