1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is a school foundation that operates C University by employing 200 full-time workers. The Intervenor is a person who was employed in general service at C University on December 5, 191.

On July 1, 2014, following the resolution of the Employee Disciplinary Committee, the Plaintiff rendered a disposition of suspension from office against the Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s ipso facto retirement was subject to a disposition of suspension from office for one month against the Intervenor.

(2) On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor was dismissed as of September 1, 2014, on the following grounds: (a) the Intervenor was identified as a person whose appointment was revoked; and (b) the Intervenor requested an accurate explanation on several occasions; and (c) the Intervenor rejected the request; and (d) the Plaintiff was notified that the Intervenor was dismissed as of September 1, 2014 for the following reasons.

(2) Article 68(1) of the Articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Corporation, which covers the general service personnel where the grounds for disqualification under Article 68(1) of the Articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Corporation have occurred during his/her term of office, does not constitute a ipso facto retirement disposition as stipulated under Article 68(3) of the Articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Corporation. The fact that the Plaintiff was appointed to a school on the first month and the first month after his/her release after his/her release, constitutes a ipso facto retirement, and thus the appointment becomes null and void on the grounds of a serious reason for disqualification. Therefore, the first inquiry tribunal of the Gangwon District Labor Relations Commission, which makes it inevitable to process ipso facto retirement, asserts that the instant ipso facto suspension disposition and ipso facto retirement constitute unfair suspension and unfair labor practices, and that the ipso facto retirement constitutes unfair suspension and unfair dismissal.

8.7.For the same year

8. On November 6, 2016, respectively, filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the part of unfair suspension from office and the part of unfair dismissal from among the Intervenor’s application for remedy on November 6, 2014 and unfair labor practices.