1. On April 10, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The plaintiff as the party to the decision of this case was established on July 1, 1995 and engaged in medical appliances and sanitary items manufacturing and selling business with 130 full-time workers. The defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") is a foreigner with the nationality of Sri Lankan, who entered the plaintiff on May 17, 201 and was in charge of operating assembly machinery.

On November 10, 2014, the Plaintiff brought disciplinary action against the Intervenor based on the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”), following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, against which the Intervenor was subject to disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

1. The serious damage to the order of the workplace by assaulting the director of C in a dormitory restaurant at the workplace on May 27, 2014 (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 1”) using a knife knife, which is a dangerous weapon, in order to seriously damage the order of the workplace.

2. Unauthorized absence from office (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”) on August 27, 2014, 28. (2)

9. The Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 11, 2014, asserting that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, for eight days in total, including 25.29, 30.3 (3), 10.1.2, and 6.2 (3). The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the instant disciplinary action was justifiable.

On February 6, 2015, the intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on February 6, 2015. On April 10, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the disciplinary action in this case is recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, but it is excessive that the disciplinary action in this case constitutes unfair dismissal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff is lawful in the instant decision by reexamination, and the purport of Gap’s evidence 1, 2, and evidence 12-7 as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings.