1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a corporation that employs about 80 full-time workers and engages in the publication and sale of newspapers, and the intervenor is a person who entered the plaintiff on December 1, 2009 and worked as a position of the director of society, etc.

On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor interfered with the Plaintiff’s work and damaged the honor.

(2) On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair. On August 18, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission received an application for remedy from the Intervenor on the ground that “the instant disciplinary dismissal was partially recognized, and that the amount of the disciplinary dismissal is excessive.”

On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on January 4, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s petition for reexamination on the ground that “the Intervenor’s filing of a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the delayed payment of wages appears to have been justifiable exercise of right, and the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit on the seizure and collection of claims in order to receive a charge for compelling compliance with the decision of indirect compulsory performance is due to the Plaintiff’s failure to implement the content of the protocol of compromise of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and some of the contents of the written applications submitted to the court are consistent with the facts, and it is difficult to deem that the portion inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s application was prepared and submitted with the intent of

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on retrial”)

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant retrial ruling, including the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant retrial ruling.