1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The party status intervenor in the process of the instant decision was established on December 16, 1965 and engaged in transportation business by employing more than 120 full-time workers. The Plaintiff is a person who entered the Intervenor on April 25, 1985 and worked as the Vice Minister of Business Affairs.

On December 10, 2014, the instant disciplinary intervenor against the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in October, 2014 due to the Intervenor Company’s attempted occupational breach of trust and occupational breach of trust, following the resolution of the Disciplinary Committee.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. On May 6, 2015, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy.

On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 19, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on August 19, 2015 on the ground that the instant disciplinary action did not have procedural defects and that it

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary action constitutes an unfair dismissal, and thus, the instant new trial ruling should be revoked accordingly, on the following grounds, since the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant new trial ruling as to the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the instant judgment; (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant new trial ruling; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant new trial ruling should

The illegality intervenor in the disciplinary proceedings is illegal to select the union members of the disciplinary committee without going through the prior hearing of opinions against the plaintiff.

C, registered as the representative director of the intervenor who has no disciplinary cause, filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff on charges of occupational breach of trust, etc., and the plaintiff is guilty of attempted occupational breach of trust and attempted occupational breach of trust.