2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. An intervenor is a corporation that runs construction business, etc. using 540 regular workers.

The Plaintiff is a person who entered into an employment contract with an intervenor on February 1, 2013 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) and worked as the president of the C Bank affiliated with the intervenor (hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

B. On April 20, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that he/she transferred the business of the president of C and returned to the Republic of Korea.

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

On May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On June 28, 2013, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “this case’s notification cannot be deemed to constitute dismissal. As the term of the instant labor contract expired on April 30, 2013, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a legitimate expectation right to the effect that the labor contract is renewed.”

On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On October 2, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s allegation constitutes an unfair dismissal on the following grounds, and thus, the decision on review of this case otherwise determined is unlawful.

1. Although the Plaintiff did not enter the term of the labor contract in the employment contract signed by the Intervenor while entering into the instant employment contract with the Intervenor, the Intervenor voluntarily entered the said employment contract period from February 1, 2013 to April 30, 2013 after entering into the contract.

In addition, the principal of the intervenor's personnel division is formally the term of employment contract to the plaintiff.