1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1) The Plaintiff is a company F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) with 140 full-time workers from April 2005 to 140.

2) The Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was subject to disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter “Disciplinary dismissal”) from November 18, 1991 to November 7, 198; the Intervenor D from October 1, 198 to October 1, 198; and the Intervenor E from May 9, 1983 to April 30, 2005, while performing the F’s security service and performing the F’s security service on May 1, 2005, the Intervenor was subject to disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal”).

1) On September 3, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Ganbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission on September 3, 2013, and on October 22, 2013, the Intervenor’s application for remedy was accepted on the ground that the instant disciplinary dismissal against the Intervenor was only applicable in the determination of the relevant disciplinary dismissal (hereinafter “instant initial trial court”).

(2) On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On February 7, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case, based on the ruling No. 2013, the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling of this case is based on the following facts: (a) there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff; (b) there was no ground for recognition; (c) the entry of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling of this case is based on the overall purport of the pleading; and (d) the Plaintiff intentionally consented to the passage of the first place of the vehicle illegally removed from the scrap metal without permission, or was grossly negligent in neglecting inspection and search, and thus, the determination of the disciplinary dismissal against the Intervenor