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 Plaintiff is a corporation that employs 65 full-time workers and engages in sports facility business and resort container business.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a worker who was employed by the Plaintiff on June 18, 2008 and was in charge of maintaining and managing information and communications facilities and equipment, such as CCTV, under the facility team.

B. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of ex officio dismissal on the grounds of “the violation of the order of deceptive scheme, the violation of the duty discipline, the spread of false facts, defamation, and sexual harassment,” following the first disciplinary committee’s resolution ( September 12, 2016) regarding “the disciplinary action against sexual harassment and the disturbance of service discipline,” which was received by the Ombudsman at the Ombudsman within the Company.

(C) On October 28, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the primary dismissal was unfair. On December 22, 2016, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded on the ground that the Intervenor’s act constituted “a disturbance or any other similar cause under the Plaintiff’s personnel regulations,” but does not constitute sexual harassment, defamation, or defamation in the workplace, and it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor had an intentional intent in connection with the disturbance of the organization’s deceptive order.

“On the ground that it received a request for remedy (hereinafter “the first Labor Relations Commission ruling”). D.

On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff ordered the intervenors to work on the 11st day of the same month in accordance with the determination of the Labor Relations Commission of the first Labor Relations Commission, and on January 12, 2017, ordered the intervenors to be released from position as of January 13, 2017, and held the Disciplinary Committee on February 6, 2017 and February 7, 2017.

The second disciplinary committee again decided on the intervenor's ex officio dismissal on the grounds of the grounds of the following disciplinary reasons (hereinafter "Disciplinary Reason Nos. 1 through 8"). On February 20, 2017, the plaintiff sent a notice of disciplinary action ex officio dismissal (Evidence No. 5) to the intervenor on February 20, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) An intervenor.