1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit (including the part resulting from the supplementary participation) shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The details and details of the decision on re-examination (hereinafter referred to as the “participating”) was established around June 1936 and approximately 840 workers are employed, engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling the precious metal by refining and refining waste copper lines, electronic circuits, cellphones, etc. among imported copper and electronic wastes.

On January 1, 1991, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served as the head of the fund team, the management diagnosis team leader, etc.

On January 28, 2015, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground of “(i) absence without permission for a long period of time without permission and failing to comply with the direction to work, ② raising and voluntary use of funds, ③ defraudation of equipment and false work (based on work), ④ coercion, attempted conflict, threat, etc. against the representative director, ⑤ an abuse of complaint or accusation against the executives and employees.”

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for the instant disciplinary action, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on June 23, 2015 on the ground that “The grounds for the instant disciplinary action are recognized partially, and the procedure for disciplinary action is lawful.”

On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On October 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, the procedural defect is found inasmuch as the intervenor did not pre-announce the dismissal to the Plaintiff one month prior to the instant disciplinary action, as the gist of the Plaintiff’s argument in the entire purport of the argument is as follows: (a) Party A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 52, 91 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) Party B’s evidence Nos. 1 to 4

The plaintiff was placed on a show of depression by the intervenor's illegal back investigation, and the plaintiff was unable to perform his/her duties due to his/her failure to perform his/her duties and was on a temporary leave of absence.

The plaintiff may take a sick leave for one year under the rules of employment, and the intervenor is dismissed from office without permission on October 2013.