1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

An intervenor in the process of the retrial decision is a corporation that operates the business of manufacturing ships and steel structures using approximately 12,00 full-time workers. The plaintiff is a person who entered the intervenor company on March 1, 1994 and worked as a technical employee at the 1st team captain and the 1st technical employee.

On July 16, 2014, the intervenor entered into a disciplinary action against the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff borrowed and did not repay money in the amount of KRW 00 million from his/her rent to his/her employees, etc., and that the plaintiff was subject to disciplinary action against his/her employees on the grounds that he/she caused financial accidents in the company and disturbed internal order by establishing and operating the events in the case of a electric source housing without the approval of

On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the intervenor on July 21, 2014, and the intervenor decided to hold a review personnel committee and dismiss the Plaintiff on July 31, 201.

8. 11. The plaintiff was notified of the above decision.

On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with respect to the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action with the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 23, 2014, the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the grounds for the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action was recognized and determined appropriate.

On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 10, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 7, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff’s worker claiming the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of the whole purport of the pleadings are strictly interpreted. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be subject to disciplinary action for reasons other than those listed in Article 32 of the rules of employment of the Intervenor.

The Plaintiff’s act of trading money with his/her employees and running the electric power resource housing sales business is above.