1. On May 30, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central 2016 Supplementary 221 Kukkiwon between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was established pursuant to the Act on the Promotion of Taekwondo and Creation, etc. of Taekwondo Park and hired 80 full-time workers, and engaged in business activities such as training of Taekwondo instructors and overseas dispatch of Taekwondo instructors through the examination of Taekwondo Pooms, the training and education of Taekwondo instructors, etc., and the Plaintiff joined the Kukkiwon on March 25, 2004 and served as B from July 11, 201.

B. On October 29, 2015, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that he/she deliberated and resolved on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff based on Article 51 (Dismissal) of the Rules of Employment on the ground that the Plaintiff had been sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million on the instant disciplinary action regarding the selection of an agent for the opening and closing of the C Games (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission regarding the instant dismissal. However, on January 18, 2016, the instant dismissal on January 18, 2016, cannot be deemed a double disciplinary measure, and the Plaintiff’s application for remedy was dismissed by deeming that justifiable grounds exist for the instant dismissal.

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination on the above first inquiry court. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on March 30, 2016 on the same ground as the above first inquiry court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination.” 【The ground for recognition. The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. On the ground that the dismissal of this case constitutes an unfair dismissal under the Plaintiff’s assertion, the decision of reexamination of this case is unlawful.

1) When the instant disciplinary cause occurred, the rules of employment of the Intervenor (amended by April 14, 2015) was enforced on July 2014.