1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on June 29, 201 and engaged in management consulting, etc. using approximately six full-time workers. On February 8, 2013, the Intervenor joined the Plaintiff and worked as an agent for the support team and was in charge of business support and administrative affairs.

B. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on the following grounds after deliberation by the Personnel Committee.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). The Intervenor took leave on April 10, 2015 without the Plaintiff’s approval.

(hereinafter “Cause 1 of the instant disciplinary action”). The Plaintiff demanded the intervenor to prepare a statement of the reasons for the use of unauthorized leave, but the intervenor did not comply with the demand.

(hereinafter “Ground 2 of the instant disciplinary action”). The Plaintiff submitted the bylaws (Operating Rules) and demanded the transfer of business affairs, but the Intervenor did not comply with the request.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”). The Plaintiff demanded to submit a personnel record card, but the Intervenor did not comply with the demand.

(hereinafter “instant ground for disciplinary action No. 4”). The Intervenor removed the place of business without permission on April 20, 2015.

(hereinafter “Ground 5 of the instant disciplinary action”). The Intervenor removed corporate documents (e.g., records of history, resident registration, identification cards, copies of identification cards, graduation certificates, academic certificates, and copies of bankbooks) without permission.

(hereinafter “instant ground for disciplinary action 6”). The intervenor had damaged the business environment and in-house lectures by enhancing the speech within the office and engaging in improper speech to the representative director.

(hereinafter “instant ground for disciplinary action”) C.

The Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission because the instant dismissal was unfair, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on June 30, 2015.

Therefore, although the plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Regional Labor Relations Commission, the Central Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the grounds for dismissal of the case on October 30, 2015.