1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant’s judgment against the Plaintiff on October 27, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the decision of reexamination is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court's explanation concerning this part is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. On September 1, 2017, the Intervenor ordered the Intervenor to be reinstated on the part of September 1, 2017, and the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor terminated on December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff has no interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant decision on reexamination.

B. Of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission on the reinstatement order and the decision of reexamination on the payment order of wages, where the reinstatement order becomes invalid after the date of termination of the labor contract due to changes in circumstances, the specific obligation to pay wages arising from the payment order of wages during the period from the day following the dismissal to the date of termination of the labor contract for which the order of reinstatement could be implemented does not retroactively cease to exist even if the order of reinstatement is invalidated due to changes in circumstances. Therefore, the employer is obliged to comply with the Labor Relations Commission’s decision, including the payment order of the amount equivalent to wages even after the termination of the labor contract, and the employer has legal interest to seek

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13196 Decided April 27, 1993, etc.). On September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff revoked the instant personnel order and ordered the Intervenor to be reinstated in office. On September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid to the Intervenor the sum of the wage difference due to the instant personnel order and the wage for the instant disciplinary period and the amount of KRW 4,556,310 in total during the instant disciplinary period. On December 31, 2018, the Intervenor is recognized as having been serving as a repair engineer in C Company from January 1, 2019 after the termination of the labor contract with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on December 31, 2018 [In the absence of any dispute, the purport of each entry in Eul, Eul, and evidence No. 1, 18, and 19, and the entire purport of each of the pleadings] However, the instant reexamination ruling is made.