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.

An intervenor in the process of the decision on reexamination is a legal entity that is established on October 2, 1943 and conducts banking business using approximately 14,500 full-time workers.

After joining the Intervenor bank on February 26, 1990, the Plaintiff started to work for the first time at the Seoul Branch, D Branch, Gyeonggi-dong E Branch, etc., and took charge of counseling FC (13 months), receipt and disbursement general (20 months), SOH (30 months), and general business affairs (48 months). On July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff was transferred to the F branch of the Intervenor bank, and served as the person in charge of nursing affairs, the person in charge of receipt and disbursement, and the general manager in charge of receipt and disbursement of the operating store.

On March 17, 2015, the intervenor conducted a field audit of F branch on March 17, 2015, and the result of the audit revealed that the plaintiff's illegal acts such as misappropriation of cash, handling of illegal loans, and lending of private money were found.

On August 20, 2015, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and decided on the dismissal of the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”), the Plaintiff’s “the Plaintiff’s violation of the duty to maintain integrity and integrity” (hereinafter “instant grounds for disciplinary action”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Plaintiff was decided on the dismissal of the Plaintiff on the same day.”

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal.” On November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the grounds that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on January 13, 2016 on the ground that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary dismissal was justifiable.

(Seoul 2015da2924). The Plaintiff applied for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission on February 24, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission recognized most of the grounds for the instant disciplinary action and appropriate disciplinary action.