2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that was established on August 30, 1997 and ordinarily employs about 30 workers and engages in publishing, film, broadcasting and communication, and information service business.

The plaintiff is a person who joined the intervenor on October 31, 2017 and served as the head of the planning team.

B. The Plaintiff had worked until February 5, 2018 and did not work for the Intervenor any longer.

C. On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff as of February 5, 2018.”

On April 9, 2018, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff as of February 5, 2018.”

On May 9, 2018, the intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On July 11, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission: “The Plaintiff and the Intervenor agreed to terminate the labor relationship on February 2, 2018 as of February 28, 2018; and the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor terminated on February 28, 2018, unless the Intervenor consents to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the agreement, the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor terminated on February 28, 2018. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s remedy procedure no longer needs to be maintained; and the benefit of the remedy has ceased to exist.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. Even if the Defendant and the Intervenor assumed that there was a benefit of remedy prior to the merits of the instant request, the Defendant and the Intervenor first presented the assertion that “The Plaintiff and the Intervenor agreed on the labor contract as of February 28, 2018, and thus, there is no benefit of remedy in the Plaintiff’s request against the Labor Relations Commission,” and even if so, the Plaintiff’s request for remedy.