1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

The details of the ruling on re-disposition

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a stock company established on June 2, 1998 and employs approximately 19 full-time workers and engages in the development, manufacture, and distribution of electronic devices, etc.

On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served as the design team.

B. On July 23, 2015, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant disciplinary cause, including that the Intervenor intentionally omitted the career experience in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) from the curriculum vitae submitted by the Plaintiff at the time of his/her employment.

hereinafter referred to as "the dismissal of this case". The notice of dismissal of this case

1. Grounds for cancellation of employment: - intentionally omitting the career experience in C, such as the omission of career experience in the resume - After entry, it shall be a situation in which the employment relationship cannot continue with us with social norms, such as failure to prepare the employment contract, failure to submit the documents required for employment, failure to comply

C. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission.

Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on December 15, 2015, on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not correct the application despite the Plaintiff’s request for submission and correction of the reasons for the application.”

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 26, 2016, but the National Labor Relations Commission rejected the application for reexamination on May 9, 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not request correction at least twice without presenting the reasons for reexamination.”

The plaintiff filed a revocation suit against the above review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission.

(Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap68922). On September 14, 2017, this Court rendered a decision revoking a new trial decision to the effect that the National Labor Relations Commission was illegal since the National Labor Relations Commission did not have any reason to reject the Plaintiff’s request for a new trial, and that both parties are not dissatisfied therewith.