1. On July 1, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that comprehensively entrusted the management of the Criart’s business, business planning, and management division, which is a public official welfare facility, from the Public Official Pension Service, with the operation of the Criart’s business, which is a public official welfare facility. The Plaintiff entered the Intervenor on January 6, 2009 and served as the head of the purchase contract team and worked as the head of the facility operation division from March 2, 2010.

B. On May 23, 2013, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on December 17, 2013, and subsequently dismissed the Plaintiff on the grounds of the following disciplinary reasons.

(2) In relation to the supply of food materials, etc., a person who has become the executive officer of the Criju and has been employed by Criju and was employed as a party who has caused the dispute, such as filing a civil petition and filing a lawsuit, and having been employed several times (hereinafter “instant ground”) and introduced the subordinate company introduced by D related to the installation work of golf course lighting facilities to give the subordinate office (hereinafter “second ground”). The subordinate office was introduced by introducing the subordinate company introduced by D related to the installation work of golf course lighting facilities to the successful bidder to give the subordinate office (hereinafter “instant ground”). While the subordinate office was implemented, it was subject to the procedures such as the subordinate approval pursuant to the regulations, but it was the fact that the subordinate office took the lead of the subordinate office illegally and unlawfully (hereinafter “third ground”) and the fact that the Criju’s honor and trust was concealed (hereinafter “the ground for dismissal”) under Article 86(3) and Article 87(4) of the Personnel Management Regulations (hereinafter “the ground for disciplinary action”).

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “ Chungcheong Labor Relations Commission”), but the Chungcheong Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on March 31, 2014 on the ground that “the procedure of disciplinary action is lawful, all of the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, and such disciplinary action is appropriate.”

On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff is to the Central Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Labor Relations Commission”).