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 intervenor is a corporation that employs approximately two hundred full-time workers and engages in C issuance business, etc.

After joining the Intervenor on July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff served as the head of the online business division of the Intervenor.

B. After internal audit was conducted from April 4, 2016 to May 16, 2016, the Intervenor ordered the Plaintiff, on July 18, 2016, to extend one-month waiting period on the ground of “the suspicions, etc. relating to the selection of a business entity during the payment and settlement agency in 2015 and 2016 (hereinafter “PG”). On August 17, 2016, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the extension of one-month waiting period on the ground of “employee insult, the intervention in the selection of a business entity in 2016, the intervention in the selection of an online advertising program agent in 2015, and the abuse of authority.”

C. On August 22, 2016, the chairperson of the personnel committee of the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the Intervenor would appear at the personnel committee of the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant notice of attendance”) held on August 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notice of attendance”). D. The said notice was called “instant notice of attendance”).

On August 23, 2016, the head of the personnel affairs team D referred the disciplinary deliberation agenda to the personnel committee of the intervenor.

On August 24, 2016, the meeting minutes of the personnel committee (No. 6 and 24) stated that the date and time of the meeting of the committee was August 23, 2016, but it appears to be a clerical error.

The personnel committee of the intervenor (the inside director E, the inside director F, and the director general of the business operation headquarters G) held on September 6, 2016 provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to vindicate, and the personnel committee of the intervenor (the personnel committee of August 24, 2016, the chairperson, and the members of the committee) held on September 6, 2016 decided to dismiss the plaintiff on the basis of Article 32 subparagraph 6 of the rules of employment of the intervenor and Article 12 subparagraph 3 through 6 of the standing rules as follows.

The Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of September 7, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) 1. 'The First Disciplinary Grounds of Sexual Harassment in the Language Act (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

The sexual words and actions are made by female employees.