1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

B. On November 30, 2016, the Intervenor notified that “the Plaintiff shall be automatically dismissed as of December 5, 2016 pursuant to Article 45(1)6 of the Rules of Employment, as the Plaintiff was absent from office for at least three consecutive days or for at least seven days in total during the year.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal notice”). C.

On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant notification of dismissal constitutes an unfair dismissal, but was dismissed on February 2, 2017.

Then, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on March 8, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 26, 2017 on the ground that “Unauthorized absence from office is difficult to be deemed to have a justifiable ground under social norms, and thus, the instant notification of dismissal cannot be deemed unlawful.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including provisional numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues to the effect that “the Plaintiff was allowed to allow the Plaintiff to take two meals in an external restaurant, but it is unreasonable to allow the Plaintiff to take meals in an internal restaurant while reinstated. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s absence from office is justifiable and not without permission.”

(b)as described in the relevant statutes and regulations and the relevant regulations;

C. On September 29, 2016, the Intervenor notified the dismissal of the Plaintiff solely on the ground of his/her work attitude (hereinafter “previous dismissal notification”).

(2) On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the previous notification of dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal (hereinafter “previous application for remedy”).

3) An intervenor on October 2016.