1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of securing the ethics and public nature of game products, preventing speculative spirit, protecting juveniles, and preventing the distribution of illegal game products pursuant to the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Act”), and carries out the above business with approximately 80 full-time workers, and the Intervenor was employed by the Plaintiff on December 23, 2013.

B. On July 9, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a two-month disciplinary measure of suspension from office against the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant suspension from office”), a two-month disciplinary measure of salary reduction on July 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant salary reduction”), and a disposition of removal from position on September 9, 2015.

C. On October 5, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that each of the above disciplinary measures and dismissal from position is unfair, and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission cited the application for remedy on the ground that there are procedural defects in the instant salary reduction, and dismissed the Intervenor’s remainder of the application for remedy.

On February 2, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 11, 2016, following the Plaintiff’s objection to each of the above initial inquiry committees. On April 20, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission: (a) the instant reduction of salary was unfair on the grounds that the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary grounds were not recognized; and (b) the instant suspension was not recognized on the grounds that the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary grounds were not recognized; (c) the instant suspension was unfair on the grounds that the relevant dismissal from position was justifiable; (d) revoked the initial trial court on the instant suspension from office and ordered relief; (e)

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment for reexamination”). 【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

(a)be as listed in the relevant statutes and regulations attached hereto;

B. As to the reduction of the salary of this case, the fact of recognition 1.