1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit after the filing of an appeal is due to the participation in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff was established as G University pursuant to the Act on the Establishment and Operation of the Fund, and was changed to a university specialized in science and engineering on March 2009, but the said Act was amended to the HI law on March 27, 2015, and was changed to the current name as a legal entity.

On September 24, 2008, the intervenor joined the plaintiff and served as the chief of the J Team affiliated with the plaintiff.

On July 14, 2015, the employee personnel committee of the Plaintiff held a deliberation on disciplinary action against the Intervenor, and resolved to dismiss the Intervenor for the following reasons for disciplinary action. On August 12, 2015, the review was held, but the dismissal was decided for the same reason.

(1) On August 19, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a notice of dismissal on August 21, 2015 to an intervenor on August 21, 2015, in accordance with the above resolution by the Personnel Committee for Employees who were absent from investigating the alleged violation of an employee’s duty, (2) illegal piracy of security documents.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”). The Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant dismissal of disciplinary action constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices dealing with disadvantage, and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission determined on December 16, 2015 that “Although the grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor are recognized, the instant dismissal of disciplinary action constitutes unfair dismissal, but does not constitute unfair labor practices.”

The Plaintiff and the Intervenor were dissatisfied with the above determination and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On May 13, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed all the applications for reexamination of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, based on the following: “The grounds for disciplinary action against the Intervenor are not specified as the grounds for disciplinary action: (i) the part concerning (ii) the Intervenor cannot be specified as the grounds for disciplinary action; and (ii) the grounds for disciplinary action which are recognized as the grounds for disciplinary action are excessive; (iii) the dismissal of the instant

(b) above.