1. On May 15, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief from unfair dismissal (No. 2013) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a juristic person established under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which ordinarily employs approximately 5,070 workers as public institutions prescribed by the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, and is engaged in industrial accident compensation insurance and employment insurance-related business.

The plaintiff joined the intervenor on May 1, 1995, and from February 12, 2008, the intervenor served as B from Seoul Northern Vice-Governor.

B. On July 28, 2009, the Intervenor rendered a disposition to dismiss the Plaintiff on the grounds of disciplinary action, including the fact that the Plaintiff neglected to handle the application for additional medical care.

(hereinafter “Removal” as of July 28, 2009). The Plaintiff filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission as to the above dismissal.

(A) On March 22, 2010, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to issue an order for remedy, such as reinstatement, to the intervenors on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are recognized, but the amount of disciplinary action is excessive,” which is the same as the application for remedy for unfair labor practice.

The Intervenor reinstated the Plaintiff on April 30, 2010 in accordance with the above order of remedy and again rendered a disposition “three months of suspension from office” to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2010 on the grounds of the above five reasons.

(hereinafter referred to as "Suspension from Office") as of May 19, 2010;

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was subject to the disposition of “Removal” as of July 28, 2009, and was engaged in the “National Committee for the Stopover against the Duty to Return to High Sea Resources.”

On April 26, 2010, the Plaintiff held an assembly before the Seoul Mine Police Station. For this reason, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition by the investigative agency on the ground that it violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

On July 8, 2010, the Plaintiff appeared at the Mine Police Station in Seoul, Seoul, and violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act.