1. On May 6, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”).

The grounds for disciplinary action on October 11, 2012 for the removal of the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s (hereinafter “ Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s removal from office on July 16, 201 (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action for the removal of the Intervenor’s removal”) from office on October 11, 2012, including the date on which the Plaintiff was employed to engage in government forest policy projects, credit business, etc. (financial financing business, etc.) from July 15, 2005.

1. Violation of the standard for prior settlement of loan transaction (hereinafter “instant 3 Cheating”) in violation of the debtor’s qualification restriction (hereinafter “instant 2 Cheating”) against D’s violation of security evaluation and loanable amount (hereinafter “instant 1 Cheating”) (hereinafter “instant 3 Cheating”), and violation of the standard for prior settlement of loan transaction (hereinafter “instant 4 Cheating”).

2. Violation of the debtor's qualification restriction related to E and violation of the loan limit exceeding the same person's loan limit (hereinafter "non-performance of No. 5 of this case"), and violation of the criteria for prior decision for loan handling (no. 6 of this case; hereinafter "non-performance of this case").

3. The disturbance of financial order due to private lending and borrowing of money (hereinafter “the misconduct of this case”)

4. Violation of financial order and duty of good faith with respect to the auction of secured real estate owned by E (hereinafter referred to as "violation 8 of this case").

5. Inappropriate management of long-term delayed claims (hereinafter referred to as "in this case 9 misconduct");

6. The dismissal of this case is not a defect in the disciplinary procedure, and the dismissal of this case constitutes a disciplinary cause, and the dismissal of this case is legitimate as it is appropriate that the dismissal of this case constitutes a disciplinary action, since the dismissal of this case constitutes a disciplinary action.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6, 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

2. The case.