부당해고구제재심판정취소
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.
The plaintiff is a corporation that employs 300 full time workers to act on behalf of C and its affiliates, etc. and operate welfare facilities. On January 31, 2012, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the plaintiff as an external instructor and worked as a health instructor at the sports center operated by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Center of this case").
On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that the appointment contract period of the above external instructor has expired.
The Intervenor asserted that he was subject to unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and applied for remedy, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on December 29, 2014 on the ground that “the Intervenor shall not be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.”
Accordingly, the Intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the said application on March 9, 2015 on the ground that “the Intervenor constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act. The Intervenor’s notice of the expiration of the contract is made in violation of the written notice of dismissal without any justifiable ground of dismissal and constitutes an unfair dismissal.”
(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”), which is without dispute, written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and evidence Nos. 5, and the purport of the entire argument as to legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination, the content of the agreement on appointment of an external instructor between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the intervenor did not have been covered by the fourth insurance, the intervenor performed his/her own business without the Plaintiff’s interference, the intervenor was engaged in his/her own business without the Plaintiff’s interference, and the intervenor was working under the other working conditions with other employees belonging to the instant center, and did not raise any objection even though he/she did not receive welfare benefits. Thus, the intervenor cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act.
Therefore, the decision of this case is unlawful.