1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
On September 6, 2005, the intervenor in the process of the retrial decision was established as a subsidiary of the Korea National Tourism Organization on September 6, 2005 to conduct the casino business for exclusive use by foreigners and its incidental business, and operated the casino business by using approximately 1,600 full-time workers in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the corporation operating the casino business, etc. using approximately 1,600 full-time workers. A public institution holding 51% shares of the Korea National Tourism Organization. The plaintiff was enrolled in the intervenor on January 16, 2006 and worked as a casino for exclusive use by foreigners from the International Marketing Team from March 1, 2010 to May 27, 2013.
On March 22, 2014, the Intervenor opened a personnel committee on July 14, 2014 and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “the Plaintiff violated Article 4 subparag. 3 and No. 4 of the Intervenor’s Discipline Regulation (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) with the Plaintiff’s personnel B, along with the Oard 1 Team 1 Team 2, on the ground that “the Plaintiff met the fraud gambling in the C hotel corridor” (hereinafter “instant misconduct”). On July 24, 2014, the Intervenor opened the personnel committee to dismiss the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the dismissal. Upon the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on July 21, 2014, the Intervenor opened a reexamination personnel committee on July 24, 2014, decided to dismiss the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff
(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal.” On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair dismissal (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission Decision 2014, 2406). However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission made a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff’s disciplinary dismissal, considering that two years have not elapsed since the grounds for disciplinary action were recognized and the salary reduction disposition was not imposed on October 20, 2014.
On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of the dismissal decision of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central District Court Decision 2014Du1184), but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the application for reexamination on January 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, and 5.