1. On March 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair relief between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor No. 2014No. 49.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff was established on August 24, 1987 and was engaged in semiconductor parts, computer manufacturing, and sales business using 1,900 full-time workers. The Intervenor joined the Plaintiff on June 16, 1997 and promoted to the Vice Minister of the Quality Control Team on July 1, 2013. The Intervenor was dismissed on August 23, 2013 according to the resignation certificate submitted on July 23, 2013.

B. On October 21, 2013, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) asserted that he was subject to unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission. The said Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on December 10, 2013.

C. Accordingly, on January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on March 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission maintained the initial trial tribunal of the relevant Regional Labor Relations Commission which accepted the application for remedy, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination was made by pressure on the part of the Intervenor who did not have any intention to resign, and was accepted by the Plaintiff. As such, it constitutes disciplinary dismissal and abuse of the discretionary power

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. An intervenor whose labor contract was agreed upon by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disciplinary committee would improve the submission of a resignation certificate when considering re-employment, etc., and there was no fact that the Plaintiff forced the intervenor to resign or would put the intervenor at a disadvantage.

The Intervenor withdrawn his/her intention to resign on August 1, 2013, which was nine (9) days after the Intervenor expressed his/her intention to resign, but the Plaintiff did not consent thereto, and the Intervenor received retirement pay on the 23th of the same month, and on the same day, the Intervenor did not raise any objection even though he/she received a notice of dismissal from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is true.