1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of participation.

The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation with the purpose of finance and credit business, etc., which employs 18 full-time workers.

Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff’s Treasury on May 2, 1995 and was in charge of credit business in a position at D points, and was subject to an indefinite suspension disposition from the Plaintiff on January 13, 2012. On August 1, 1985, the Intervenor C entered the Plaintiff’s Treasury and was in charge of credit business at D points, and was subject to an indefinite suspension disposition from the Plaintiff’s Treasury on January 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

On February 28, 2012, the Intervenor made an application for remedy to the Ganbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and the Ganbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to the effect that, on April 27, 2012, the instant disciplinary action was unfair, the Intervenor would return the Intervenor to the Plaintiff and pay the Intervenor the amount equivalent to the wages he could have received if the Intervenor were to be reinstated during the period of suspension from office.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 23, 2012, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on August 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Based on recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the whole purport of the argument, and the purport of the judgment of the reexamination of this case as to legitimacy of the judgment of the reexamination of this case, the intervenor B, who asserted the plaintiff, shall deliver to the E auditor the facts pointed out that ① violation of the duty of good faith, such as receiving a very low point in the evaluation of business ability, ② violation of the duty of good faith, ② violation by which the principal in charge of credit management at D points, etc., files complaints against the issue of the director in charge of credit management at D points, and ③ violation of the duty to obey by causing damage to the organized discipline, ③ arbitrarily compiling the corrective order of August 22, 201, which is the internal document of the Plaintiff’s credit cooperative, and the F executive at the time of audit of the Plaintiff’