1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Details of the decision made by each retrial;

A. An intervenor is a juristic person established on May 1, 1995 under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which ordinarily employs approximately 6,600 workers and carries out industrial accident compensation insurance, application and collection of employment insurance, etc.

Plaintiff

A is a person who was employed by the Intervenor on August 10, 200 and worked in C branch offices, D branch offices, E branch offices, etc., and the Plaintiff B is a person who was employed in the Intervenor on August 1, 2002 and worked in F Headquarters Rehabilitation Compensation2, G branch offices, etc.

B. H had worked for the Intervenor from April 1, 2005 to December 31, 2012, and had not been qualified as an attorney-at-law or a certified public labor attorney after retirement to handle the affairs related to industrial accident compensation insurance.

In the above process, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office prosecuted H as committing the crime of offering of rewards, violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, and violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, and violation of Misappropriation by providing money and other valuables to advisory doctors of the intervenor. The Seoul Central District Court convicted H on April 7, 2017 of all the facts charged against H, and sentenced H to the penalty of KRW 1 year and two months and KRW 187,164,82 to H on April 7, 2017 (2017 Gohaphap103, 191, 192). The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.

Around January 2017, the Intervenor provided the relevant materials from the prosecutor's office with respect to the suspicion of offering of bribe to the employees belonging to H's Intervenor, and conducted a specific audit on seven employees including the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter “The instant specific audit.” After conducting the instant specific audit, the Intervenor’s audit and inspection, around March 2017, recognized the Intervenor’s misconduct, such as acceptance of money and valuables, leakage of customer information and unauthorized perusal, personal contact with persons related to duties, and neglect of duties to request an integrated review of obstacles.