On October 11, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal with respect to this case.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs approximately 120 full-time workers and engages in taxi passenger vehicle transportation business.

The Plaintiff was established as “C Co., Ltd.” on September 27, 1967, and changed its trade name to “D Co., Ltd.” on June 25, 199, and as of October 18, 2016.

B. On December 1, 2001, the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff and was in charge of accounting affairs as the chief of accounting division.

C. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of his/her dismissal on February 1, 2017, on the ground that: ① an intervenor’s instructions for signing on his/her behalf to the welfare expense ordering group to pay the cost of welfare, ② an amount reduced of value-added tax, ② embezzlement of KRW 1,492,297 (misappropriation); ③ 14 days of absence from office without permission; ④ refusal to give instructions to the Company on the explanation of the paid person; ⑤ neglect to provide his/her service; and ⑤ deletion of business files;

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) D.

On February 24, 2017, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that “the dismissal of this case constitutes unfair dismissal.”

On June 2, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the dismissal of the instant case as unfair dismissal and judged that it received an application for remedy from the Intervenor.

E. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking the revocation of its determination by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

F. Meanwhile, on July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Intervenor wages, etc., which were not paid to the Intervenor on July 31, 2017, upon returning to the retirement age (the age of 60 years) under Article 57 of the Rules of Employment of August 31, 2004, the Intervenor reached the retirement age (the age of 60 years) as of August 17, 2017, and on the same day, the labor contract termination guidance with the Plaintiff was terminated. In addition, the Plaintiff returned to the Intervenor on July 31, 2017 upon the implementation of the order for remedy in accordance with the determination of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff took a measure that the Intervenor retired from office.

G. The National Labor Relations Commission shall take September 13, 2017.