1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On February 7, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Reasons for the decision on disciplinary dismissal and retrial; and

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company F (hereinafter “F”) with 140 full-time workers from April 2005 to 140.

2) The Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was subject to disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter “Disciplinary dismissal”) from November 18, 1991 to November 7, 198; the Intervenor D from October 1, 198 to October 1, 198; and the Intervenor E from May 9, 1983 to April 30, 2005, while performing the F’s security service and performing the F’s security service on May 1, 2005, the Intervenor was subject to disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”).

B. On September 3, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary dismissal is unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Ganbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. On October 22, 2013, the said commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the instant disciplinary dismissal against the Intervenor was only applicable in the determination of the relevant disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter “instant initial inquiry tribunal”).

(2) On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On February 7, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case, based on the ruling No. 2013, the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized as the grounds for disciplinary dismissal in this case, since the Plaintiff’s assertion on the passage of a vehicle without permission to remove the scrap metal in F intentionally or by understanding it with respect to the so-called accident of removal from the scrap metal without permission.