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.

Details of the Review Decision

A. The intervenor is a non-profit special corporation that ordinarily employs approximately 130 full-time workers to perform government entrusted affairs under the Electric Utility Act, etc. The plaintiff is a person who joined the intervenor on July 22, 1996 and worked as the secretary general of the Gyeonggi-do Council from April 1, 201.

B. On February 1, 2016, the Intervenor issued a disposition to the Plaintiff as a civil petition affairs team and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the 16th of the same month. The Intervenor’s president, following the dismissal of the Plaintiff, notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was dismissed on February 18, 2016 on the basis of the violation of Articles 4, 5, and 13 of the Service Regulations, and the special guidelines on the disciplinary action against sex-related offenders.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”) C.

On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission in the same year.

7. 12. 12. The Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the instant disciplinary cause was recognized and the determination was made beyond the scope of discretion.

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination with the same purport as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 10, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, entry in Gap’s 1 through 5, or Eul’s 8 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Article 50(1) of the Service Regulations provides that when a sentence of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier is finalized, the grounds for dismissal shall be 30 days, and Article 51(1) of the same Act provides that the employee shall be dismissed before being notified 30 days, and the dismissal shall be made without prior notice even before the determination of the fine for the Plaintiff.2)