1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 342,113,052 and KRW 5,333,33 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 342,13,052 from June 5, 2013, and KRW 336,779,719.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The defendant has its head office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and employs about 14 full-time workers at the above address, and primarily engages in the business of start-up investment in venture businesses, small and medium enterprises, film industry, etc. (2) The plaintiff joined the defendant on August 1, 2006 and served as an investment review station until May 8, 2013.

B. The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection 1) was ordered by the Defendant for urgent suspension from office on May 6, 2013. On the same day, the Plaintiff was notified of the appointment of the disciplinary committee on the ground of violation of Article 32(2) of the Employment Regulations (Violation of the Provisions), Article 2(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Rules on the Ethics of Officers and Employees (“the Code of Ethics of Officers and Employees”) and disciplinary dismissal on May 8, 2013 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

(2) On July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case was unfair, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Plaintiff’s application on September 13, 2013 on the ground that the procedural defect in the instant dismissal was unlawful.

On October 4, 2013, the Defendant dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal and filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Defendant’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry tribunal on December 6, 2013.

3. On January 20, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court seeking the revocation of the said ruling by asserting that the dismissal of the instant case was lawful.

However, the Daejeon District Court dismissed the Defendant’s claim on the following grounds in the case No. 2014Guhap290 on January 8, 2015:

① Although the Defendant’s employment rules provide that the relevant worker shall be given an opportunity to vindicate before the dismissal of the instant case, the Defendant did not give the Plaintiff an opportunity to vindicate before the dismissal of the instant worker.