1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a public institution that was established on September 30, 2015 and ordinarily employs approximately 180 workers and operates a business of research, promotion, etc. of Asian culture.

On October 5, 2015, the intervenor joined the plaintiff and carried out marketing-related affairs.

B. On January 24, 2017, the Plaintiff opened a personnel committee to take disciplinary action against the Intervenor and decided to discipline the Intervenor. On February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the purport that “i) the illegal receipt of overtime work allowance, (ii) the illegal use of parking tickets, (iii) the obstruction of performance business team’s duties, (iv) the violation of watchkeeping duty, (v) the violation of good faith duty, (vii) the violation of duty instruction, and (vii) the violation of dignity maintenance as grounds

(hereinafter the above disciplinary dismissal is referred to as the “instant disciplinary action,” and the instant disciplinary cause as stated above is followed by the number, and the instant disciplinary cause is referred to as the “instant disciplinary cause.”

An intervenor filed a request for remedy to the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission that the disciplinary action of this case constitutes unfair dismissal.

On April 13, 2017, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted a request for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “The grounds for No.4 of the instant disciplinary action are not recognized, and all of the grounds for No.4 of the instant disciplinary action are deemed to have been acceptable, but the request for remedy against unfair dismissal is unreasonable compared to

(J) Jeonnam 2017, 45, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case") d.

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed an application for reexamination on May 23, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission, on August 7, 2017, did not normally perform work on duty as of April 10, 2016 and work on duty as of April 16, 2016. Therefore, the instant grounds for disciplinary action, unlike the judgment in the initial trial court, are all recognized.

However, with regard to the grounds for the disciplinary action No. 1, the disciplinary action of this case constitutes an unfair dismissal by excessive determination, in light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the intervenor unlawfully received the overtime work allowance over 13 times in total, as alleged by the plaintiff.

Therefore, this is applicable.