1. On April 13, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The Plaintiff as the party to the instant decision was established on January 18, 1974 and engaged in the comprehensive building management business by employing more than 4,800 full-time workers. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff on October 4, 2014 and served as the head of the security team in building B.

On October 4, 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the instant employment contract with the Intervenor, signed the employment contract with the Intervenor from October 4, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant employment contract”). On the following grounds, the result of the management evaluation for the Intervenor is less than 70 points, and it is determined that the Intervenor is disqualified for regular employment.

1. Drinking at a speech room during working hours;

2. Not concentrating duties by frequent use of smartphones.

3. The person takes a bath at each end of the horse and the person cannot melt him with his paying staff;

4. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of the instant employment contract on the following grounds that the Plaintiff failed to perform the direction and education of the chief of the management office:

(2) On November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 14, 2014, asserting that the termination of the instant labor contract was unfair. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on January 14, 2015.

On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 4, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 13, 2015 on the ground that “the termination of the instant labor contract based on the Intervenor’s above action cannot be objectively and reasonably conducted, and thus constitutes unfair dismissal.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground for recognition] does not dispute, and Article 12 through 12.