1. On January 7, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal remedy with the center between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, Annex 2015, 1028.

The plaintiff is a local government that performs local administrative affairs by using 1,300 full-time workers, and the defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating") is a person subject to disciplinary action on June 25, 2015, when he/she is employed as a store manager in A viewing on January 1, 2013 and is in charge of the management of a store and has been employed as a store manager on a one-year basis.

On July 6, 2015, the intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the dismissal of disciplinary action by the plaintiff was unfair dismissal.

On September 4, 2015, the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission was absent from office on September 4, 2015, and there was no prior or later permission from the employer and no contact was requested from the employer, and there was an inevitable circumstance that the intervenor is unable to contact with the employer.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the intervenor did not work until June 10, 2015 from May 26, 2015 to June 10, 2015, the intervenor’s failure to work constitutes absence from work without permission. This constitutes a violation of the worker’s basic duty of labor provision and duty of good faith, and thus it is deemed difficult to maintain labor relations, and thus, the disciplinary dismissal and disposition cannot be deemed illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretionary power, and thus dismissed

(hereinafter “First Inquiry Tribunal”). On October 8, 2015, an intervenor dissatisfied with the first Inquiry Tribunal and filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the first Inquiry Tribunal with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 8, 2015. The National Labor Relations Commission created a forum as the intervenor’s duty was aggravated due to the absence of a dietitian, and the occurrence of such a forum was partly responsible to the Plaintiff, the intervenor was partly responsible to the Plaintiff, and the competent officer was also aware of the difficulty of the Intervenor’s duties by delivering the document to the competent officer in charge, and the cook or intervenor working for the welfare officer.