The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of lawsuit, including the part arising from the participation in the subsidy, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that opened on February 21, 1961 and runs broadcasting business and cultural business.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who was enrolled in the Plaintiff on November 1, 199 and served as the head of the department in charge of public relations of national policies for public relations from September 11, 2015.

B. On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff’s auditor received information that the Intervenor appears to engage in D and private business from the policy publicity division from around September 2016 to April 2, 2018, and conducted a special audit on the Intervenor from January 15, 2018 to March 3, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant special audit”).

(c)

Based on the results of the instant special audit, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee on April 13, 2018 to decide to punish the Intervenor, and notified the Intervenor on April 17, 2018.

Accordingly, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff, and on April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff held a review personnel committee and decided to maintain the original judgment, and notified the Intervenor of the fact on May 2, 2018 (hereinafter “prior dismissal”). D.

On July 6, 2018, an intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on September 3, 2018, the said Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment (E) accepting an application for remedy by a participant on the ground that “the disciplinary procedure is unlawful in violation of the provisions regarding the composition of the personnel committee prescribed by the rules of employment.”

E. On November 5, 2018, the Plaintiff reinstated the Intervenor and issued a waiting order on the same day. On January 29, 2019, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee to decide to dismiss the Intervenor for the same reason as the previous dismissal, and notified the Intervenor thereof.

In this regard, the notice of the decision of the personnel committee sent by the plaintiff to the intervenors does not specify the time of dismissal.

F. The Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff re-examination on February 13, 2019.