The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a legal entity that was established on January 30, 1990 and ordinarily employs approximately 15,000 workers and engages in banking business.

The plaintiff is a person who joined the intervenor on July 14, 2008 and was in charge of credit business.

1. Acceptance of money and valuables from customers (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 1”);

2. A violation of the prohibition of lending and borrowing money between the credit transaction office and the private money (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 2”)

3. Violation of the prohibition of improper or abnormal performance of duties (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 3 of this case”).

4. Violation of obligation to verify the real name of real name (hereinafter “Disciplinary Reason No. 4”)

B. On October 28, 2016, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) C.

On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the instant dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on March 22, 2017 on the ground that “the grounds of each of the instant disciplinary grounds are recognized and a disciplinary decision is appropriate.”

On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry court on June 27, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff entered the Intervenor on July 14, 2008, and thereafter, from June 9, 2010 to June 14, 2010, the Plaintiff primarily took charge of the business of examining and managing loans from individuals, micro enterprises, and companies (credit business). On April 15, 2015, the director of the class of responsible manager was promoted and continued to engage in credit business. 2) On September 17, 2008, the Plaintiff opened a bank B’s account (bank C; hereinafter “instant account”).

loan on the date of customer loan.