1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that employs not less than 2,80 full-time workers from 2,80 U.S. innovation, and operates 27 driver’s license tests, including B driver’s license tests, as a corporation that carries out traffic safety projects, traffic broadcasting projects, and driver’s license management projects.

In 2017, the Plaintiff worked as the head of the licensing test division at B driver's license test division.

B. On May 24, 2017, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of illegally issuing C’s driver’s license on April 14, 2017 (hereinafter “instant misconduct”) constituted grounds for disciplinary action on the grounds that “the Plaintiff’s act of violating the law and official duties” under Article 47(1) of the Personnel Regulations constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) C.

On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on August 16, 2017 on the ground that “the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized, the disciplinary action is appropriate, and no procedural defect is found.”

On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the initial inquiry tribunal, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal on November 20, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not receive money and valuables for consideration from C, the occurrence of traffic accidents, etc. was not caused by the illegal licensing of C, and the head of D civil petition department had safety guidance personnel engage in the functional practice, and there was a complaint that the safety guidance personnel delayed retirement hours.