1. On June 25, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a school foundation established for the purpose of training human resources in the fields of science and technology and conducting research-oriented higher education that contributes to human beings and national development through basic research on science and technology and industrial-academic cooperative research. On July 7, 1986, the Plaintiff was employed as the team leader from December 1, 2009 to May 10, 2012; from May 11, 201 to March 7, 2013; and was employed as the team leader of C/D from March 8, 2013 to December 18 of the same year.

B. On March 6, 2013, an intervenor received an internal accusation against the Plaintiff’s non-Ethical act and conducted a special audit (hereinafter “instant special audit”) from March 12, 2013 to April 20, 2013, and collected the same data as attached Table 1. The intervenor held the Personnel Committee on June 3, 2013, held the Employee Disciplinary Committee on July 31, 2013, held the Employee Disciplinary Committee on July 31, 2013, issued a dismissal disposition against the Plaintiff on August 8, 2013, and revoked the above dismissal disposition by the Personnel Review Committee on August 28, 2013 (Article 24(2) of the collective agreement of 2012, stating that the Intervenor did not comply with the provision that “an employee of at least Grade 5 recommended by the Federation’s Personnel Committee for Universities and Colleges shall participate in an employee of universities and colleges”.

7. On December 16, 2013, the personnel committee, including one employee of Grade V or higher, recommended by the labor union, decided to recommend the president of the Plaintiff to take disciplinary action. Accordingly, the employee disciplinary committee held on December 16, 2013 according to the request for disciplinary action by the chief director, and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff for the following reasons (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). The chief executive officer of the Intervenor, on December 18, 2013, violated Article 33(1)1, 2, and 3 of the Employee Personnel Management Regulations and Article 2(1) of the Regulations on the Prevention and Handling of Sexual Violence against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Regulations on Prevention of Sexual Harassment”).