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 public institution protecting and fostering fishery resources, and researching, developing, and distributing fishing ground management and technology.

On April 1, 2012, the intervenor joined the Plaintiff Corporation and served as the head of the planning and coordination office.

B. On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) held a personnel committee as a ground for disciplinary action that “the Intervenor provided a false sick leave without a diagnosis for three days from November 7, 2012 to November 9, 2012; and (b) held the Plaintiff’s president and the Director of the Plaintiff and the Director of the Plaintiff, along with the China.” (c) decided to give an intervenor an unwritten warning.

(hereinafter referred to as "the warning of this case")

On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff: ① (i) the Intervenor provided a false sick leave without a medical certificate for three days from November 7, 2012 to November 9, 2012; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s chief director and the Director of the Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff’s director, sent a golf trip to China (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 1”); (iii) the Intervenor’s chief director and the Director of the Plaintiff, along with Cambodia’s president, sent a golf trip to China (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”); and (iii) the Intervenor was subject to the criticism of the media due to repeated overseas golf travel, and caused social controversy by being subject to the examination of the state administration (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 3”) by being subject to the disciplinary cause; and (iii) notified the Intervenor on March 25, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lecture, etc.”) D.

On May 29, 2014, the intervenor claimed that the instant lecture, etc. constituted an unfair disciplinary action, and filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission was found to be the ground for disciplinary action on July 28, 2014, but excessive disciplinary action is determined.The intervenor was requested to remedy the Intervenor on the ground of ‘the intervenor's request for remedy.

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 20, 2014, but the National Labor Relations Commission (“National Labor Relations Commission”) on October 22, 2014, issued a written warning to the Intervenor for the same reason. Therefore, the grounds for disciplinary action against double Jeopardy are against the principle of res judicata.