1. On April 16, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair relief between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor No. 2014, 139.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs 70 full-time workers and runs financial business, etc.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff Union on September 16, 1985 and served as the branch office B from February 3, 2012.

B. On Nov. 12, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) on Jul. 24, 2013, the Intervenor: (b) on Jul. 24, 2013, sent 18 million won out of the Si reserve funds (the remaining money after the Plaintiff extended a customer’s deposit) to his/her own account; (c) on Jul. 25, 2013, the Plaintiff closed the business with the shortage of time reserve funds of 18 million won; (d) on Jul. 25, 2013, the Intervenor sent 4 million won out of the Si reserve funds to his/her own account; and (d) on Jul. 25, 2013, the Intervenor did not appear at the Plaintiff’s principal office 20 million won and 18 million won to be deposited into his/her own account; and (e) on Jul. 24, 2013, the Intervenor did not appear at the Plaintiff’s meeting on Jul. 13, 2015.

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

On November 13, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission. On January 14, 2014, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action are deemed to be excessive, but the disciplinary action is deemed to be determined.”

On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On April 16, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination.

hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination.”