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.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. An intervenor is a corporation that runs banking business by employing approximately 15,00 full-time workers.

On November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor, and worked at B or C points, etc., and worked at D points from December 12, 2013, and was in charge of credit collection.

B. On March 15, 2017, the Intervenor’s personnel committee, which was held on March 15, 2017, resolved that the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on grounds of the grounds of the reasons for the disciplinary reasons set forth in attached Table 1, and the Intervenor

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

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 16, 2017.

On August 10, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to refer to the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the grounds that “the forgery of private documents among the grounds for the grounds for the disciplinary action specified in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the grounds for the disciplinary action”), the non-performance of credit business (hereinafter “the grounds for the disciplinary action 5”) and the voluntary change of customer information (hereinafter “the grounds for the disciplinary action 6”) are recognized as legitimate grounds for the disciplinary action. However, the treatment of fraud loans (hereinafter “the grounds for the disciplinary action”), the violation of the prohibition of private lending and borrowing of money (hereinafter “the grounds for the disciplinary action”), and the violation of the prohibition of conflict of interest (hereinafter “the grounds for disciplinary action”) were not recognized as justifiable grounds for the disciplinary action, and the disciplinary action was abused or abused, compared to the degree of the act of misconduct

Seoul 2017 only 1328) d.

On September 15, 2017, the intervenor applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On November 16, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the above initial inquiry court and made a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's request for remedy on the grounds that "the grounds for disciplinary action No. 1 through 6 are recognized as both justifiable grounds for disciplinary action and the disciplinary discretion was not abused or abused as well as the disciplinary discretion was inappropriate."

(Central 2017 Section 947, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Ground for recognition] of absence of dispute, and No. 1 and 1.