1. On March 22, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. On August 1, 2015, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) concluded a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff with the contract term of two years (from August 1, 2015 to July 30, 2017) and worked as the head of the event and operation team.

B. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor from position on the ground of his/her insufficient ability to perform his/her duties and poor performance.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, C performed an audit on the Plaintiff from July 19, 2016 to August 8, 2016, and requested the Plaintiff to make a resolution on the Intervenor’s disciplinary action.

On September 19, 2016, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and decided to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground of failure to comply with the order of work [1] (2) to execute the business direction; failure to comply with the direction to revise and supplement the implementation plan; failure to comply with the direction; failure to comply with the direction of the staff E of the management team personnel E; failure to prepare for the event of the BJ personnel E]; 2 failure to prepare a business trip order; 3 failure to execute the budget of the disbursement decision; 4 failure to perform the duties to manage goods; 5 failure to perform the duties to manage goods; 5 failure to notify the Intervenor of the fact

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). E.

On September 21, 2016, the intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on November 29, 2016, the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the dismissal of the intervenor on September 19, 2016, which was conducted by the plaintiff on September 29, 2016, was unfair.

2. Within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication, the Plaintiff would return the Intervenor to his former former former position within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication, and would pay the amount equivalent to the amount of wages which would have been paid

F. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the foregoing decision, filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on January 10, 2017. The National Labor Relations Commission, on March 22, 2017, determined “(i) the execution of the instant project and the failure to comply with the direction to revise and supplement the Promotion Plan during the nonperformance of the business instruction,” and ② the failure to comply with the direction to revise and supplement the Promotion Plan.