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 corporation that operates financial business with 36 full-time workers employed by the plaintiff, and the defendant joining the defendant joining the defendant on June 21, 2001, the chief of division, the intervenor C, and the defendant joining the plaintiff on August 1, 1995, the intervenor D, the executive director on June 22, 1992, and the intervenor E, the intervenor E, the employee on February 4, 1983, respectively.

B. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the intervenors from the fifth regular society. Accordingly, on October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a description of the grounds for disciplinary action as follows to the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant removal disposition”).

Pursuant to the notice of reprimands issued by executives and employees as a result of the inspection of the Ulsan Special Metropolitan City Head Office, Ulsan Special Metropolitan City Head Office (St. 17. July 17, 2014-993), a resolution passed by the 5th regular board of directors in 2014 under Chapter V of the Personnel Regulations;

C. On November 28, 2014, the intervenors filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission for relief from the removal of the instant case (Seoul District Labor Relations Commission Decision 2014Du592), and on January 14, 2015, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the removal of the instant case was unfair.

On February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 23, 2015 (Central 2015, 162), but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination on the following grounds:

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) 1. Whether disciplinary proceedings are justifiable: ① the Plaintiff did not notify the Intervenor in writing of the specific grounds for dismissal and the date of dismissal; ② the board of directors convened the board of directors to resolve the instant decision on dismissal by convening the board of directors even though the removal of the Intervenor was rejected twice, appears to be procedurally unfair; ③ the same disciplinary action as the Intervenor appears to be the chairman of the board of directors scheduled to be the same disciplinary action as the Intervenor.