1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Circumstances and details of the decision on reexamination;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that was established on December 21, 1993 and ordinarily employs about 30 workers and operates a tourist management business.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff on February 13, 2017 and was on duty.

C. On December 12, 2018, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor as the grounds for dismissal as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal.” Since it was proved that the company’s goods were stolen or embezzled, and that it is against the company’s development ideology and policy, the company’s dismissal pursuant to Articles 8, 37(4), (15), and (16) of the Rules of Employment, by failing to faithfully perform its duties, caused enormous damages to the company by creating a situation in which it is entirely impossible to cope with the issue of liquidated damages and the name lending construction work.

D. On January 9, 2019, the Intervenor asserted that “the instant dismissal is unfair,” and filed an application for remedy with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On March 11, 2019, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “the grounds for the dismissal of this case are recognized, the disciplinary action is appropriate, and the disciplinary procedure is also legitimate.”

E. On April 18, 2019, the Intervenor dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry court and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On June 11, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court and accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “it is recognized that the Intervenor, among the grounds for the dismissal of this case, knew that D, who is a person in charge of the contract affairs of the construction works, is performing construction works by borrowing the name of the construction works, and is not affiliated with the construction works, but all of the remaining grounds for dismissal are not recognized.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [This case’s ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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