2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a private teaching institute for middle and high school students. On May 11, 2015, the Intervenor agreed to receive KRW 2.8 million monthly salary from the Plaintiff and was employed as an English instructor on October 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

B. On October 19, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the instant dismissal was unfair and applied for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 16, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission ordered the Intervenor to pay KRW 8,400,000, including the amount of wages, on behalf of the Plaintiff, on the ground that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal in violation of the written notification procedure of dismissal, and that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.

C. On May 10, 2016, the Intervenor appealed in the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same grounds as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”) . 2. Whether the instant decision on review was lawful

A. On the grounds delineated below the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant decision on review was unlawful.

1) The Plaintiff solicited the Intervenor to resign on or around October 6, 2015 through October 8, 2015, and accepted by the Intervenor and agreed that the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated, not the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor against the Intervenor’s intent. (ii) The Intervenor was a monthly wage worker at the time of the instant dismissal and was able to immediately dismiss the Intervenor because Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act on the notice of dismissal under Article 35 subparag. 3 of the same Act does not apply to the monthly wage worker at the time of the instant dismissal. Accordingly, the effect of the decision of unconstitutionality made against the Intervenor under Article 35 subparag. 3 of the Labor Standards Act on December 23, 2015 does not affect the retroactive effect in light of the principle of trust protection. Thus, the Plaintiff did not notify the Intervenor of the grounds for dismissal in writing.