1. The Defendant’s dismissal against Plaintiff A on June 3, 2016 and the dismissal against Plaintiff B on September 27, 2016 respectively.

On May 25, 2016, the Defendant decided to dismiss the Plaintiffs, who are the Defendant’s employees, from office, and accordingly, dismissed the Plaintiffs from office on June 3, 2016, and on September 27, 2016, respectively.

According to Article 50(1) and (4) of the Personnel Regulations of the Defendant, in order for the Defendant’s board to make a resolution on disciplinary action, the Defendant’s board of directors must give a discipline accused person an opportunity to be present in writing or directly at the board of directors to inform him/her of his/her submission of a explanatory statement or attendance at the board of directors seven

However, the defendant did not notify the plaintiffs of the submission of a explanatory statement or the attendance of the board of directors seven days prior to the holding of the board of directors, and instead, he held the board of directors at the personal office of the president D, not the defendant's meeting room.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs could not know that they are subject to disciplinary action and that the board of directors for disciplinary action was held. The resolution was made in the absence of attendance of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the instant disciplinary action is invalid without any need to examine the remainder of the grounds for disciplinary action, etc., inasmuch as the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiffs, who violated personnel regulations, with an opportunity to inform the Plaintiffs, due to the significant and apparent procedural defect.

The plaintiffs' claims are justified and accepted.