1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On September 5, 201, an intervenor was established on September 5, 201, and employs 60 full-time workers at the Gunpo-si and employs 60 full-time workers at the Gunpo-si, and the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor on October 15, 201 as the chief of the management department.

B. On July 2, 2013, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal”) on the grounds of “the act of warfare against the representative director D, abuse of corporate cards, lack of work attitude and work attitude, and type of objection against commercial instruction” (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

C. On September 2, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant dismissal was unfair, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On October 23, 2013, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant dismissal was unfair on the ground that a disciplinary decision was excessive.

On November 12, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission. On January 24, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry tribunal and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the grounds that the grounds for disciplinary action are reasonable and the propriety of disciplinary action and the legitimacy of disciplinary procedure are recognized.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] A; entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 17; and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to Article 27(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 18 of the Rules of Employment, the dismissal must be notified in writing, and a notice of dismissal should be given separate from the notice of the result of disciplinary action. The Intervenor’s representative director D (hereinafter “D”).

(2) Although the Plaintiff was aware of the address where the Plaintiff actually resided, and the Plaintiff sent the result of disciplinary action in writing after the termination of the Disciplinary Committee, and only sent the Plaintiff’s agent a notice of dismissal to “e-mail” without sending the notice of dismissal, it cannot be deemed that there was a legitimate dismissal notice. (2) The absence of the grounds for disciplinary action is against the representative director.