1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

On June 24, 2003, the plaintiff was established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling the gold scrap metal, and its head office and factory are established in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and its head office is established in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and approximately 66 full-time workers are used.

On January 4, 1996, the Intervenor was transferred to the Plaintiff Company, an affiliate of the E Company, and worked as the management support team leader on June 1, 201 while working for the E Company.

On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) notified the Intervenor of the attendance of the Disciplinary Committee on February 13, 2015; (b) held a disciplinary committee to obtain unjust financial benefits of KRW 1,307,000 through unfair abuse of the oil support system; and (c) received KRW 1,00,000,00 on the ground that it is presumed that it would be limited to the primary liability even during the cancellation period of the driver’s license; and (d) received KRW 1,300,000 by unduly converting the amount equivalent to the 110 liter of the 110 liter of the month (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”); and (e) notified the Intervenor of the dismissal on February 16, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”). On March 9, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair dismissal, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 9, 2015. On May 4, 2015, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission, among the Plaintiff’s disciplinary members, did not notify the Plaintiff of the holding of the said disciplinary committee, the resolution of the said disciplinary committee does not take effect due to any defect in failing to implement the notification of the convocation procedure. The instant disciplinary dismissal against the instant disciplinary action was accepted by the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s dismissal against the instant disciplinary action was excessive compared to the degree of the misconduct in the instant disciplinary cause, and the Plaintiff reinstated the Intervenor within 30 days, and paid the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal.

(hereinafter referred to as "the first inquiry tribunal of this case"). The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the above first inquiry tribunal and is at the National Labor Relations Commission on June 12, 2015.