1. On April 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s 2015 Supplementary Notes 195, 205 (Joint) between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a golf practice range in E in terms of harmony (hereinafter “instant golf practice range”). The Intervenor, who is an employee of the Plaintiff, was in charge of managing the instant golf practice range and its overall management. The Intervenor C was in charge of accounting and customer management, and the Intervenor D was in charge of managing the mechanical practice room on November 21, 2014. On the effective date of dismissal, the Intervenor C interfered with the business of preventing access to the office and preventing confirmation of the details of income in managing the company by the representative director and operating the company.

(hereinafter “Cause for First Instance”) 2. A company’s income shall be deposited and used in the personal account book of an employee other than the company’s account book to cause damage to the company.

(hereinafter “Grounds for Second Dismissal”) On November 21, 2014, the Intervenor incurred loss to the company by allowing the employees, other than the company’s passbook, to deposit and use the company’s income in the individual passbook.

On October 1, 2014, the Intervenor expressed his intention of voluntary withdrawal after the interview on October 11, 2014.

2. Unauthorized absence;

3. The theft of fixtures;

B. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the dismissal.

C. On December 3, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the dismissal of the Plaintiff was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on January 27, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission was justifiable to dismiss the Intervenor B, but on January 27, 2015, the Intervenor C and D determined that there was procedural defect in the process of not giving written notice of dismissal, and dismissed the Intervenor B’s application for remedy, and only accepted the Intervenor C and D application for remedy.

Accordingly, the plaintiff and the intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the intervenor B from office on April 27, 2015 on the premise that only the ground for dismissal of the intervenor B is recognized.