1. On February 24, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central decision between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on February 24, 2015.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff is a legal entity established for the purpose of developing, using, and promoting the distribution of energy resources of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, as prescribed by the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Local Public Enterprises Act and Jeju Energy Corporation, and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) submitted a public employment application form for employees of Jeju Energy Corporation on August 2, 2015 and submitted it on August 5, 2015, document screening, written examination on August 13, 2015, written examination on August 13, 2015, and written examination on August 19, 2015, but passed the final decision on August 24, 2015, but revoked on September 2, 2015.

B. On September 10, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission, alleging that the Plaintiff’s revocation of the passing of the recruitment for public disclosure of employees was unreasonable. On November 10, 2015, the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff’s immediate revocation of the passing of the Intervenor pursuant to Article 10(4) of the Personnel Regulations and the refusal of the recruitment does not constitute an abuse or deviation

(No. 2015 Books 106, hereinafter referred to as "First Inquiry Tribunal")

C. On February 24, 2016, the Central Labor Relations Commission, which appealed in the initial trial tribunal and filed a request for a review with the National Labor Relations Commission. The grounds for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Intervenor’s career was false are dependent on the content indicated in the entire company’s certificate that was employed by the Intervenor. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor did not work for the period that is not indicated in the entire certificate of registered matters, and it is difficult to deem that there exists justifiable grounds for the revocation of the pass and the refusal of the final employment, solely on the grounds that there is a difference between the career period stated in the Intervenor’s resume and the entire certificate of registered matters.