1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The details and details of the review decision are corporations established to develop the national marine science and technology and to secure international competitiveness in accordance with the Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology Act, which are affiliated with the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

On March 2, 2016, the intervenors entered the Korea Marine Plant Plant Research Institute (hereinafter “Research Institute”) affiliated with the Plaintiff on March 2, 2016, and worked as the Intervenor A as the CTS (hereinafter “D”) managing the technical field comprehensively, and the Intervenor B as the team leader at the Project Development Team.

On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee to provide the intervenors with an opportunity to vindicate, and then decided on the “defluence” for violating Article 14 (Duty to Observe), Article 29 (Prohibition of other Business), Article 24 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 25 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 26 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 28 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) and Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Rules of Employment, Article 14 (Duty to Observe), Article 24 (Duty to Observe Responsibility), Article 25 (Duty to Maintain Dignity), Article 26 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the Rules of Employment, Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Rules of Employment, and Article 4 (Duty to Maintain Dignity) of the Rules of Employment.

On August 16, 2016, the intervenors filed a request for re-adjudication with the Plaintiff on August 22, 2016, but the Plaintiff, after re-deliberation, confirmed each of the above “spawn” decision and notified the Intervenor in writing of dismissal (on September 25, 2016, the date on which dismissal is determined).

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). Specific grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor are as follows.

1. From March 2, 2016 to May 6, 2016, the Intervenor was employed in duplicate by the Research Institute and the E company, a competitor (hereinafter “E company”). 2. Notwithstanding that the Intervenor was a D’s CET, the Intervenor did not comply with D’s instructions to report the work of F, a competitor, except for the weekly work reporting from March 2, 2016 to June 16, 2016.