1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff as the party to the instant decision was established on May 7, 1974 and operated A Medical Center, C Hospital, etc. (hereinafter “instant hospital”) under its jurisdiction. The Intervenor was a person who was enrolled in the instant hospital on October 2, 1993 and was working as the original team strike from March 15, 2013.

On April 25, 2014, following the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor pursuant to Article 15 subparag. 1, 3, and Article 16 of the A Medical Personnel Disciplinary Rules, following the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”).

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

1. Instructions to substitute the outstanding amount (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 1");

2. Neglecting to report by the head of the department (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 2");

3. Diversion of unclaimed subscription fees for free visits (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason 3");

4. Occupational embezzlements by making a refund of unpaid subscription fees (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Reason No. 4");

5. On May 29, 2014, the first inquiry tribunal of the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 5”) by deceiving the organization through the production of an exaggerated petition and causing the decline in internal and external confidence of the hospital administrative organization (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 5”) asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair and unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission cited the Intervenor’s application for remedy on July 22, 2014.

On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on October 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “this case’s disciplinary action is deemed to have all the grounds for disciplinary action except the grounds for disciplinary action No. 5, but constitutes an excessive dismissal of disciplinary action.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, and Nos. 1 and 1.