1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a Korean corporation of C Group with its head office in Switzerland, which was established on September 20, 1984 and ordinarily employs approximately 530 workers on September 20, 198, Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and engages in drug import and sales business.

On July 1, 2005, the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff’s career position and took charge of the business. On January 1, 2013, the Intervenor was issued by the Seoul Head of the Seoul Headquarters (TM) of the E Business Department (E).

B. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff sent notice to the Intervenor as of May 24, 2013 on the ground that the Intervenor violated Article 9 subparag. 10, subparag. 12, subparag. 3, and subparag. 15 of the Rules of Employment, and Article 49 subparag. 3, and subparag. 15 of the Rules of Employment, on the ground that the Intervenor violated the said Rules, “The Intervenor was dismissed as of the same day on the ground that the Intervenor violated the said Rules on the grounds that the Intervenor violated the said Rules on the part of F’s Customer Hospital’s Customer, which was the team’s team, and paid golf expenses with F’s credit card, and on May 3, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”) C.

On December 21, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant disciplinary action was unreasonable. On February 16, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor’s illegal rebates offering is deemed a ground for disciplinary action, but it is excessive to take a disciplinary action.”

On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on May 24, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Party A’s entries in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 19, 21, and Party A’s Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was sufficiently informed of the Plaintiff’s illegal rebates prohibition policy as the supervisor of the affiliated business division’s employees, and the subordinate employees were illegal.