1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is a Korean subsidiary of the D Company, which has its head office in the United States Chicago, and carries out business activities such as financial information, online information provision, and software development, established on June 9, 200.

On June 29, 2015, the Plaintiff joined the management planning team affiliated with the Intervenor as a regular accounting officer.

B. On December 26, 2018, the Intervenor held the Performance Management Committee and the Disciplinary Committee against the Plaintiff, respectively, to make a resolution on the ordinary dismissal and disciplinary action against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant ordinary dismissal,” “the instant disciplinary action,” and, in general, “the instant dismissal,” “the instant dismissal”). On the same day, the Intervenor’s performance and behavior was not improved at a reasonable level even after they had gone through the performance improvement procedure under Article 38 of the Rules of Employment. (ii) The Intervenor’s inappropriate behavior was in violation of the company’s regulations or the Code of Conduct, and caused the Company to be in violation of the disciplinary action under Articles 39 through 40 of the Rules of Employment, and thus, notified the Plaintiff in writing of dismissal on the grounds that the relationship between the Intervenor and the Intervenor is terminated.

(A) Evidence Nos. 15, A. 2.c.

On January 14, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of the instant case was improper, and filed a remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On March 13, 2019, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission did not recognize grounds for dismissal with respect to the instant ordinary dismissal on March 13, 2019; however, in the case of dismissal of the instant disciplinary action, it determined that the dismissal of the instant disciplinary action was justifiable.

(E) The first inquiry court of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

On April 25, 2019, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal of the instant case and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On June 27, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination as the first inquiry tribunal of this case.

(C) The review ruling of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant review ruling”).