1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ordinarily employs about 10 workers and engages in online information provision business. On April 16, 2015, the Intervenor joined the Plaintiff and retired from office on May 14, 2015 while engaging in web planning business as a development team member. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff.

B. On March 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative director C (hereinafter “representative”) and the managing director D, headquarters E, etc. issued a notice of dismissal to dismiss the Intervenor by holding a disciplinary committee against the Intervenor on March 1, 2016. The Plaintiff issued to the Intervenor a notice of dismissal to the effect that the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor as of February 29, 2016, based on the grounds for disciplinary action, ① his/her job attitude and job order column, ② his/her performance failure, ③ work order failure, ④ frequent dispute with his/her commercial company, ⑤ frequent distort the fact-finding that the Intervenor’s desire to work would have

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

On March 3, 2016, the Intervenor asserted that the instant dismissal was unfair, and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 3, 2016. On April 27, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “It is recognized only as a ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s neglect of duty and disturbance of workplace order and dismissal of the Intervenor only based on the grounds for disciplinary action recognized as a ground for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor is unreasonable.”

On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on August 8, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). (e)

The parts related to this case of the rules of employment of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of Employment") are as follows:

Article 11 (Work to and from Work) (1) Any employee shall work before the start of his/her work and prepare for his/her work so as not to interfere with the normal performance of his/her duties.