1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The intervenor in the process of the decision on re-adjudication was established on June 29, 1998 and operated the casino business, tourist hotel business, etc. with 3,700 full-time workers employed in the 265-time workers in the Hawon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun, Seowon-gun. The plaintiff was employed as a career worker in the intervenor's hotel preparation team on March 3, 2003.

On August 7, 2014, an intervenor entered the Intervenor’s hotel preparation team on January 2003, and entered the Plaintiff’s career in the Chinese-style sector by submitting a copy of the qualification certificate of Korean-style cooking technician. However, on January 24, 2014, it was confirmed that the Korean Technology Qualification Examination Board did not obtain the qualification certificate of Korean-style cooking technician as a result of inquiring about the authenticity of national technical qualification. This constitutes grounds for dismissal under the Intervenor’s personnel regulations and the disciplinary enforcement rules. (hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”).

On October 22, 2014, an intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal against the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission (Gangwon 2014, 259), and on December 18, 2014, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said application for remedy (hereinafter referred to as “the initial trial tribunal of this case”).

On January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination of the instant first inquiry tribunal with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central Ministry of Justice 2015.71), and the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the said application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the retrial decision of this case as to legitimacy of the retrial decision of this case as to legitimacy of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff submitted the plaintiff's lawfully issued a cook license at the time of applying for membership of the intervenor, and there was no forgery of the cook's license, and there was no intention to deceive the intervenor.

If the entry documents are false, it is possible to dismiss them in accordance with the rules on the intervenor's personnel.

Even if the plaintiff is employed for 11 years after his membership.