1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

An intervenor in the process of the decision on reexamination is a corporation that comprehensively performs the operation of the Criart, which is a public official welfare facility, by being entrusted with the management of the Criart, such as the business, business planning, and management portion of the Criart, which is a public official welfare facility. The plaintiff was employed by the intervenor on January 6, 2009 and worked as the head of the purchase contract team and worked as the head of the facility operation division from March

On May 23, 2013, an intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on December 17, 2013 and dismissed the Plaintiff on the following grounds for disciplinary action.

(2) The lower court determined that the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant 1 and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the provision of food materials, etc. (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the provision of food materials, etc., but did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the provision of materials, etc. (hereinafter “reasons 3”) and by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the provision of materials, etc. (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”), and thereby, rejected the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant 1 and the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant 1 and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the provision of materials, etc. (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”), and the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the provision of materials, etc. (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”), and by exceeding the bounds of the legal principles regarding the provision of materials, the lower court rejected the lower court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application for disciplinary action under Article 86(1) of the instant Disciplinary Punishment Act.

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2014, 441). However, the National Labor Relations Commission on July 4, 2014.