1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The cost of review shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, do not conflict between the parties or are apparent in records.

1) The intervenor is an incorporated association established on October 4, 1999, with the aim of improving the educational environment of schools at all levels in the Gyeongbuk-gun, and discovering and fostering excellent human resources who can contribute to the State and society through scholarship projects, thereby running projects, such as awarding scholarships, granting D and E school affairs for the development of C military education. 2) On March 3, 2015, the plaintiff is a person who was employed by the intervenor in March 3, 2015 and entered into an annual employment contract on one-year basis in E bachelor’s affairs in Seoul F (hereinafter “the instant school affairs”), leading students, and managing and managing the instant school affairs in this case.

B. On February 24, 2017, the Intervenor sent a prior notice of dismissal to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant notice of dismissal”) on the ground that the Plaintiff was dismissed on the ground of excessive interference with privacy and creation of sexual influence due to access to the accommodation of female students (hereinafter “grounds for dismissal”) and “civil petition due to the manager’s failure to comply with the instructions (hereinafter “reasons for dismissal 2”)” (hereinafter “instant notice of dismissal”), and the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on April 5, 2017, in accordance with the instant notice of dismissal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

(1) On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with G for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on July 10, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor’s dismissal against the Intervenor’s act of standing the Intervenor’s instructions and entering the accommodation of female students” was justifiable. (2) On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sought revocation of the said determination to H.