1. On June 27, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) against the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant’s Intervenor”).

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on February 13, 1971 and employs 9,927 full-time workers, and runs the wholesale and retail distribution business, such as 250 GSmarkets and 100 GS25 convenience stores in each area across the country.

On May 8, 2003, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff as Class 4 employee, and served as the Defendant’s store from September 6, 201 to the GSS Market B, following the Mancheon Point and the Mancheon Point, after being promoted to his agency on March 1, 2008.

B. On November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) held an ethics committee with respect to the Intervenor, and decided to recommend the Intervenor by applying Article 74(5) and (8) of the Rules of Employment on the grounds of false stock entry instruction (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”); (b) the illegal use of the corporate card (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”); (c) the unauthorized removal of goods (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”); and (d) the Plaintiff issued a recommendation notice to the Intervenor on the same day.

An intervenor dissatisfied with this and filed a request for review against the plaintiff. On November 27, 2012, the plaintiff held a Review Ethics Committee to dismiss the intervenor's claim. On the same day, the intervenor retired and the labor relationship was terminated.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). C.

On November 13, 2012, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission and the Central Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy by asserting that the instant disciplinary action constituted an unfair disciplinary action with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On April 4, 2013, the said Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized all the grounds for disciplinary action, excluding the wearing of uniforms, among the grounds for disciplinary action of the Intervenor on April 4, 2013, and the disciplinary proceedings are legitimate, but the Plaintiff may be paid during the period of the Intervenor’s reinstatement from office and the termination of labor relations.