1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was established around September 15, 1962 and posted approximately 160 full-time workers (taxisers) in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with its head office (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) and is a taxi company operating taxi transport business. The Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor company as a taxi driver on March 1, 2013.

B. On June 28, 2013, the Intervenor sent the notice of termination of the contract to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal”), and the content thereof was that the Intervenor knew that the employment contract was terminated as of June 30, 2013 due to false entry in the membership documents in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Rules of Employment of the Company, and Article 26 of the collective agreement.

C. On July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal was unfair and applied for remedy for unfair dismissal to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the said commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on August 30, 2013.

On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on November 28, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision for reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] / Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant dismissal is procedurally unlawful. (A) The Plaintiff’s period of service exceeds three months, and the Plaintiff was not in the position of probationary worker at the time of the instant dismissal. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be dismissed without undergoing disciplinary proceedings.

B) Even if the Plaintiff is a probationary employee, it is procedurally unlawful for the Intervenor to dismiss the Plaintiff without undergoing any disciplinary procedure. 2) The instant ground for dismissal is not justifiable. Although it was true that the Plaintiff did not state a part of his work experience in the curriculum, it does not intentionally omit the fact of misconduct.