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.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 2,80 full-time workers and engages in the business of manufacturing information and electronic industrial materials.

On December 21, 1991, an intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff, and was promoted respectively on September 21, 2001 and February 21, 2007.

Since April 9, 2007, the intervenor was in charge of waste treatment, etc. under the control of the Ministry of Environment (the name of the post office was changed to the "environmental safety team", etc.) at the Yasan Factory located in the Yasan City.

B. The Plaintiff’s personnel committee held on January 11, 2017 decided that the Intervenor was punished by dismissal as of January 13, 2017 on the ground that the Intervenor conspired with C on December 13, 2016, and attempted to remove Class 27 Section 42 of the Plaintiff’s assets, such as handbager, etc., to the outside of the arms factory without the Plaintiff’s approval (hereinafter “instant misconduct”), on the ground that “the Intervenor was punished by dismissal as of January 13, 2017,” and the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on January 13, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant dismissal”). (c)

On January 25, 2017, an intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff’s review personnel committee held on February 2, 2017 dismissed the Intervenor’s request for review, and the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on the same day.

On March 3, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that the dismissal of the instant case constituted unfair dismissal and applied for remedy to the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On April 26, 2017, the Jeonbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the grounds that the disciplinary action is deemed to have been excessive and abused the disciplinary discretion.

(Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2017Du35). (e)

On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's application for reexamination on August 10, 2017 on the same grounds as the first inquiry court.

(C) On the other hand, the public prosecutor belonging to the Gun Office of the previous District Public Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “former District Public Prosecutor’s Office”) on December 13, 2016, in total, KRW 1,372,300, the market price owned by the Plaintiff.