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

A. The plaintiff was established on May 15, 1967 and run a newspaper publishing business by using 131 full-time workers and publishing early newspapers C, monthly D, etc. The defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter "the intervenor joining the defendant") was engaged in the cartoon and full-time picture management business to be published in C on July 2, 1983 and was voluntarily retired on December 31, 1997, and again, he continued to perform cartoon and full-time picture business in the plaintiff's office from January 3, 1998.

B. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the intervenors to the effect that the intervenors should continue to publish cartoons and a full-time publication in the circumstances of their management verbally, and that they should work only.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (c)

On February 24, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. On April 21, 2014, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act and the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal without complying with written notification.

On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as to May 8, 2014, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial trial court on July 14, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. On December 197, an intervenor who does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act, paid business income tax for 16 years without being subject to four major insurance after retirement, and did not raise any objection. On the other hand, the intervenor's high pay increased significantly in around 2005.