1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff is a corporation that ordinarily employs 4,700 full-time workers and engages in automobile manufacturing and sales business. The intervenor is a person who was employed by the plaintiff company on February 1, 1995 and worked as the researcher.

On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and decided to punish the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor violated Article 48(1), (2), (5), and (20) of the Personnel Regulations, and Article 64(1), (2), (5), and (20) of the Rules of Employment. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the decision to dismiss the Intervenor. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff requested for reexamination, but notified the Intervenor of the disciplinary dismissal on October 1, 2015.

(A) On October 1, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 2, 2015 that the instant disciplinary dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission received an application for remedy from the Intervenor on December 23, 2016.

On February 2, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on the said initial inquiry tribunal. However, on April 20, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that it is unreasonable to punish the Intervenor on the ground that it is unreasonable to punish the Intervenor on the ground of negligence, since the incident caused by the Intervenor occurred in connection with the vehicle examination, the provisions on the examination vehicle accident should be applied preferentially since the accident caused by the Intervenor occurred in connection with the vehicle examination.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 9 through 12, and the purport of the entire argument as to the lawfulness of the instant decision on reexamination, taking into account the risks accompanied by the Plaintiff’s test on the function test of the vehicle for which the Plaintiff’s assertion was not completed, all of the liability for property and personnel affairs arising from the negligence of the driver of the test vehicle.