1. On June 13, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The Plaintiff, as the party to the instant decision, has 2,00 teachers, and is operating 17 full-time workers while employing 2,00 teachers, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who was enrolled in the Plaintiff church as a secretary on February 20, 201 and worked as the Plaintiff church.

On November 27, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor as of December 31, 2013, following the resolution of the Review Committee, on November 27, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). 【Grounds for Disciplinary Action】

1. Leakage of personal information or leakage of official documents of believers (it shall be used as an act of selling personal information of believerss and believers and inducing their honor of churches);

2. Absence from office without permission (recognition of absence from office for four days, such as October 2);

3. Act of abusive language to his/her employees (hereinafter referred to as “huming, etc.”).

4. Inappropriate filing of a complaint or filing of a lawsuit (or acts of dissatisfactioning a complaint or executing an honorary inspection of a church even after a judgment of dismissal without suspicion is rendered);

5. Personal misappropriation (the fact of confirming the personal misappropriation of the cost of disposing of the abolition and the disposal of the discarded church property which is the church property and the fact of using approximately KRW 300,000,000 for individual use);

6. On January 10, 2014, the first inquiry tribunal at the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason Nos. 1 through 6”) asserted that the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed a petition for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 6, 2014. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on March 6, 2014.

On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on April 3, 2014, but the National Labor Relations Commission recognized the grounds for disciplinary action Nos. 3, 5, and 6 among the grounds for disciplinary action of the case, but the part on the divulgence of personal information among the grounds for disciplinary action No.