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. Facts recognized, such as the background of the decision on reexamination;

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated association that employs about 10 full-time workers in the field of the Republic of Korea and exercises overall control over and represent the field world of the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff is an incorporated association that improves people's physical strength by widely spreading the field games, and conducts business necessary for enhancing national prestige and developing national sports culture. The Plaintiff is an organization affiliated with the Korea Amateur Athletic Association.

B. On April 16, 2015, while serving as Plaintiff B on January 2, 2014, the Intervenor again presented to the board of directors an agenda item with B the execution of not more than KRW 5 million, which was rejected by the standing directors’ meeting, to the board of directors on April 16, 2015 (i) false issuance of certificates of performance under the Plaintiff’s name; (ii) failure to comply with the order to remove the B office of the company; and (iii) failure to attend the meeting of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism to remove the place of work without permission;

(hereinafter referred to as “advance dismissal”). (c)

The Intervenor asserted that the preceding dismissal was unfair and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On June 29, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) recognized that only the act of again presenting the agenda that was rejected to the board of directors was justifiable grounds for disciplinary action, and that dismissing the Intervenor solely on the grounds recognized as the grounds for disciplinary action was excessive and unreasonable, thereby admitting the Intervenor’s request for remedy.

On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 4, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription imposed on November 20, 2015 does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action, and the remainder of grounds for disciplinary action is not recognized as legitimate.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff newly established a position C by changing the organization of office, and reinstated the Intervenor, which was B on September 1, 2015, to C, and the Intervenor did not work as the Plaintiff’s office after the reinstatement, and worked in the Dag-gu.