1. The National Labor Relations Commission is between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on July 14, 2016.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff was established on October 21, 1992, and was engaged in financial business with nine full-time workers at the above address. 2) The Intervenor entered the Plaintiff on February 21, 1995 and worked as the head of the Plaintiff’s main business support team from January 1, 2012 to August 31, 2014, and thereafter, worked as the head of the Plaintiff’s branch office at the Plaintiff C branch office.

B. (1) On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff’s chief director: “Around February 18, 2010, D, the director of the Plaintiff’s division, inflicted an injury on the Intervenor for a period of four (4) weeks before the Intervenor; the Intervenor strongly rejected the agreement by asserting that D and continued service was significantly impossible; thus, the Intervenor may interfere with the unity of employees and disrupt the order, as well as disrupt the order of the Plaintiff’s honor, and cause huge water to the community, thereby hindering the future development of the Plaintiff.” The Plaintiff’s board of directors demanded a resolution on disciplinary action against the Intervenor. On March 4, 2010, the Plaintiff’s board of directors, on the ground that Article 46(1)3 and Article 47(2)1 and 3 of the Personnel Regulations were violated Article 7 of the Service Regulations, thereby reducing the amount of disciplinary action against the Intervenor for three (3) months in advance.

(2) On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff violated Article 3 of the Service Regulations due to the occurrence of civil petitions due to the sale of the bonds agreed upon and damaged the image of the credit cooperative; the violation of Articles 3, 6, and 7 of the Service Regulations by deceiving a third party obligor with respect to the continuous illegal use of the corporate card and the repayment of auction loans; the violation of Articles 3, 6, and 7 of the Service Regulations by defraudation of money; and the violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Service Regulations due to the violation of the obligation to submit financial transaction information with the Suwon District Court and the confidentiality related to the response; and the violation of Articles 46(1) and 47(2)1, 2, 3, and 3 of the Service Regulations.