The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a social welfare foundation that was established on February 1, 1960 and ordinarily employs approximately 90 workers and operates a senior welfare center, etc.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on April 12, 2006 and served as a caregiver at A (hereinafter referred to as the “Welfare”).

In relation to the accident of the patient C, the patient neglected his duty to report, delayed treatment by voluntary judgment, and caused the aggravation of the status of C.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 1”). Unauthorized absence from office and dismissal, etc. were defective.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 2”). The results of the work evaluation were leaked to other employees.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 3 of this case”). The patient D was subject to a sanction for unnecessary resignation.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 4 of this case”). The patient E was subject to a sanction for unnecessary breathing of hand.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 5” (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 5”), taken photographs of inside the facility without permission, and leaked data, thereby divulging confidential information.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason 6 of this case”). Other employees’ appeal against the Intervenor is continuing.

(2) The grounds for appeal No. 7 are as follows. (3) The grounds for appeal are as follows: (a) the public prosecutorial order of the head of the facility and the head of the facility; (b) the public prosecutorial order of deceptive scheme is disturbed and internal disturbance is created; (c) the public prosecutorial order is obstructed by surveillance and intimidation; (d) the public prosecutorial order is obstructed;

B. On October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor for the following reasons.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) C.

On December 7, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the dismissal of the instant case was improper.

On February 3, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “The grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 of this case are recognized, and such disciplinary action is also appropriate.”