1. On October 2, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair remedy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) employs 150 full-time workers as a corporation whose purpose is to operate a private teaching institute business, such as operating a school called “C University.”

On July 24, 1996, the plaintiff was employed as an agent for the secretary general of the intervenor corporation.

On January 10, 2013, an intervenor held a disciplinary committee against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff attended the above disciplinary committee and filed a motion to challenge all seven members of the disciplinary committee.

The above Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Intervenor’s motion for challenge on the same day, and again held the Disciplinary Committee on January 18, 2013 and decided to dismiss the Intervenor from office (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

The grounds for the disciplinary action against the plaintiff include ① unauthorized absence and unauthorized absence from work place, ② non-compliance with personnel orders, ③ unauthorized overseas travel, ④ non-payment of university-use vehicles, ⑤ refusal to receive postal items.

On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff was notified of the above disciplinary action and applied for a challenge against five of the Review Committee members on February 4, 2013.

However, on May 9, 2013, the Intervenor's Review Disciplinary Committee dismissed the Plaintiff's request for review.

Accordingly, on April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with respect to the former Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “former Regional Labor Relations Commission”) by asserting that: (a) there is procedural defect in the process of the Plaintiff’s application for challenge; and (b) there is deviation or abuse of disciplinary action; (c) however, the former Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on June 5, 2013; and (d) the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the said Regional Labor Relations Commission’s decision (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence Nos. 2, 12, 14, and evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the whole purport of the pleading, and the plaintiff's procedural assertion as to the legitimacy of the ruling of reexamination of this case.