1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The defendant is a legal entity established on October 2, 1943 and engaged in banking business using approximately fourteen thousand and five hundred full-time workers.

B. After becoming a member of the Defendant bank on February 26, 1990, the Plaintiff started the first service at the Defendant bank, and was transferred to the distribution south branch, the malicious branch, the Gyeonggi-do Haak Light Branch, etc., and was in charge of counseling FC (13 months), the general manager of receipt and disbursement (20 months), the SOHO (30 months), and the general manager of the operating store (48 months). On July 26, 201, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Suwon branch of the Defendant bank, and served as the person in charge of nursing, the person in charge of receipt and disbursement, and the general manager in charge of receipt and disbursement of the operating store.

C. On March 17, 2015, the Defendant conducted a field audit of the Suwon Branch, and the result of the audit revealed that the Plaintiff’s act of misappropriation of cash, handling of unfair loans, and lending and borrowing of private money was found.

On August 20, 2015, the Defendant held a personnel committee and decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s “use of cash time, handling of loan in violation of the discretionary right, handling of divided credit, credit rating non-refrating, handling of facility loan, handling of loan funds, non-refrating of loan loan, CFratum, non-refrating, calculating the lending limit, using non-refrating and other purposes of funds, violation of the obligation to verify the real name of financial transaction, violation of the obligation to prohibit private lending and lending, violation of the obligation to prohibit profit-making, violation of the obligation to report and re-issuance, violation of the obligation to voluntarily keep the passbook, and violation of the obligation to maintain integrity” as the grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”) E.

On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On January 13, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that the instant disciplinary dismissal was justifiable.

(Seoul 2015da2924). The plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 24, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission on May 10, 2016 most of the grounds for the instant disciplinary action.