1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company established on March 11, 200 and engaged in wholesale and retail business of medical appliances, etc.

On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Intervenor (hereinafter “Contract Period”): from October 20, 2014 to December 31, 2015; from October 20, 2014 to December 31, 2015; the business in charge; and annual salary: KRW 3,0150,000.

(after that, the vehicle, etc. for commuting was provided instead of reducing the annual salary of KRW 30 million. (B)

On February 26, 2015, an intervenor held a disciplinary committee and resolved on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff for the following reasons, and notified the Plaintiff on February 27, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action” refers to “the grounds for disciplinary action,” and the grounds for disciplinary action are referred to as “the grounds for disciplinary action,” according to the sequence thereof). ① Use for personal purposes of a company’s vehicle ② Non-authorized outing and leaving the workplace without permission for personal use during working hours ③ Non-performance of legitimate business instructions of the company ③ Non-performance of legitimate business instructions of the company ④ Non-performance of legitimate business instructions of the company ④ Non-performance of business instructions by the company ④ Continuous demand for continuous money, various civil petitions and reports from the first day of reinstatement ④ Interference with the company’s visit and disturbance to the company with the outside of intimidation 7 interference with business

C. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On April 28, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “(i), (ii), (iv) the grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized, but the rest of (iii), (5), (7), the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized and appropriate.”

On June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 24, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] : (a) without dispute; (b) entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, 15; and (c) Nos. 7 and 8; and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's summary of argument is the plaintiff.