1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff and the intervenor's related intervenor employed approximately 61,00 full-time workers and engaged in automobile manufacturing and sales business. On May 28, 1984, the plaintiff joined the intervenor and served as the former main factory B technology appointment and technical placement.

Article 36 (Unfair Disciplinary Action) If dismissal is found to be an improper disciplinary action by a decision of the Labor Relations Commission or the court, the company shall take the following measures:

1. A disposition of invalidation of disciplinary action shall be taken on the date of receipt of the written ruling or decision and shall issue an order of reinstatement to the original position.

2. With respect to a person who is found to have been subject to unfair disciplinary action, 200% of the average wage for the relevant period of time shall be immediately paid, as well as wages that he/she has naturally received at the time of his/her attendance, and

3. A company shall, even if it is dissatisfied with the determination of the relevant agency and requests a review, implement subparagraphs 1 and 2 once it returns to the same similar occupational category by respecting its opinion at the time of extinguishment of its original position.

Of the contents of a collective agreement concluded between the intervenor and the intervenor trade union, those related to this case shall be as follows:

On February 10, 2015, the Labor Relations Commission rendered a fine of KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff for the criminal facts that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 157,540,000 from the Intervenor’s employees for gambling (the Jeonju District Court 2014 High Court 20156), and the foregoing judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on the ground that the Intervenor’s dismissal of the Intervenor and the Labor Relations Commission’s order for remedy were the facts charged by the Intervenor

On March 18, 2015, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that he was dismissed as the next day by taking the above criminal facts as grounds for disciplinary action.

On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal was unfair and filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission. On August 11, 2015, the former Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the dismissal was unfair and accepted the application for remedy by the Plaintiff.

(B) On September 14, 2015, the Intervenor rendered a personnel order against the Plaintiff on March 19, 2015.