beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):
(1) The Plaintiff is a school foundation that operates D schools by employing approximately 120 full-time workers in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on February 24, 1964, which was established on February 24, 1964 for the purpose of conducting middle and high general education.
The following year from March 10, 1996, during which he/she was working as the head of the administrative office of the school operated by the Plaintiff from March 10, 2010 and was dismissed on October 5, 2010, and was reinstated on April 3, 2013 in accordance with the judgment that the above dismissal was unfair as follows:
6. 17. The worker is dismissed.
B. (i) While working at D Schools operated by the Plaintiff, the Intervenor was dismissed on August 20, 2010 for the following reasons and was dismissed on October 5 of the same year.
(2) On July 22, 2009, the Intervenor received 500,000 won from the National Federation of Students on February 15, 2010, from the National Federation of Students on the ground that he/she was not able to report the whereabouts of the above money at a meeting organized by the head of the school on April 15, 2010, and kept the same until the time until the whereabouts of the above money is taken place. The Intervenor asserted on December 1, 2010 that the first dismissal of the instant case constitutes an unfair dismissal and was not carried out the pertinent business. However, the Intervenor rejected the Intervenor’s claim for remedy against the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Local Labor Relations Commission) on the ground that the first dismissal of the instant case constituted an unfair dismissal and the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected on July 22, 2009.
2.3.