1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on September 5, 2014 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. The Defendant on September 2, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company established on February 10, 1966, which manufactures and sells various storage batteries.

On August 1, 1987, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company and served as the team leader from March 1, 2010.

As the team leader responsible for the development planning and marketing management of new products, the Plaintiff caused damage to the company’s reputation due to ① false report on C demand investigation and sales prospects (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”), ② failure to comply with the Product Quality Planning and Amendment Management Regulations (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”); ③ false publicity of C as a general leisure distance (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”); ④ failure to sell a new product that has not been verified (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 4”); ⑤ intentional delay in production and sales after the first loss (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 5”) for the performance of the new product planned by the Plaintiff.

On September 5, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) on October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the instant dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 22, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for partial disciplinary action is not recognized and the disciplinary action is too harsh.”

On February 4, 2015, the Defendant appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On April 9, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination.” The Defendant, who is dissatisfied with the instant decision on reexamination, filed a petition with the Seoul Administrative Court for revocation of the adjudication on reexamination of unfair dismissal under 2015Guhap63913, and the Seoul Administrative Court filed a petition with the Seoul Administrative Court on April 7, 2016 on the ground that “The grounds for the reexamination are deemed to exist, but that the disciplinary action is excessive.”