1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The details and details of the decision on reexamination was established around June 1936 by the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) and around 840 workers are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gold, silver, dynamic, and precious metal by refining and refining waste copper lines, electronic circuits, cellphones, etc. among imported copper and electronic wastes.

On January 1, 1991, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor.

The intervenor acquired C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) to secure secondary materials necessary for the project on March 16, 2009, and the plaintiff served as the head of the Intervenor’s fund team and the joint representative director of D from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201. From January 1, 2011 to December 31, 201, the intervenor worked as D representative director, and from January 1, 201 to December 31, 201, the plaintiff worked as the management diagnosis team leader of the intervenor.

On January 28, 2015, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground of “(i) absence without permission for a long period of time without permission and failing to comply with the direction to work, ② raising and voluntary use of funds, ③ defraudation of equipment and false work (based on work), ④ coercion, attempted conflict, threat, etc. against the representative director, ⑤ an abuse of complaint or accusation against the executives and employees.”

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for the instant disciplinary action. On June 23, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “The grounds for the instant disciplinary action (3) through (5) are not recognized, but the above grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, but the grounds for disciplinary action (2) is recognized, and the procedures for disciplinary action are reasonable and lawful.”

On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as October 27, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] includes non-satisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 52, 91, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 7, if any.

(c).