1. On May 9, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The plaintiff is a corporation established on January 2, 2009 and employs 16 full-time workers to operate a professional axis and engage in entertainment activities. The defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") is a person who has joined the plaintiff company and has been in charge of the selection of a security company and the payment of progress payment.

On November 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action against the Intervenor on dismissal on grounds of the following disciplinary grounds (hereinafter “instant disciplinary grounds”):

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). Disciplinary reasons: Receipt of money and valuables, offering of convenience, etc. by the collaborative company

1. Money and valuables, and giving and receiving of convenience from the security service company in charge: Golf loans, green fluor, and high meal service companies;

2. On December 6, 2013, an intervenor who has damaged the dignity of the company, claiming that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and applied for unfair dismissal on the ground that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and on January 27, 2014, the former North Korean Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “former North Korean Labor Relations Commission”) accepted an application for relief on the ground that “the disciplinary procedure is lawful, but only the grounds for disciplinary action due to the receipt of money and valuables and convenience among the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, and the grounds for disciplinary action due to the injury to the company’s dignity are not recognized. Considering the fact that the Intervenor’s acceptance of money and valuables is of consideration or it is not likely to have affected the company’s duties, the instant dismissal was subject to disciplinary action.”

On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “China”); however, on May 9, 2014, the Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the former North Korean Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legitimacy of the decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case directly acknowledges the fact