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

A. On September 13, 2001, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of technical support, maintenance, repair, etc. for the sale of software and hardware, and used approximately 150 full-time workers at the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building and six floors with its main office, thereby running the software development and supply business.

B. On August 4, 2014, the Intervenor was notified of dismissal from position and standby order from the Plaintiff on January 28, 2016 and received notification of the suspension of employment contract under Article 3 of the Employment Contract as the e-mail on February 2, 2016, stating that “The grounds for termination of the contract under Article 3 of the Employment Contract as of August 4, 2014 have occurred,” and thus, the Intervenor suspended employment contract pursuant to Article 5(1) of the same Agreement.”

(2) The notification from February 2, 2016 to February 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

On March 4, 2016, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on May 3, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that “the instant notification constitutes an unfair dismissal, because it is difficult to recognize the reason and legitimacy of the procedure as a substantial dismissal.”

On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on August 30, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the instant notification on the ground that “the Intervenor constitutes a worker subject to the Labor Standards Act, and the instant notification constitutes a substantial dismissal as a termination of the work hours due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral intent to terminate the contract, and it cannot be deemed that there is a serious reason to the extent that the Intervenor cannot continue to maintain an employment relationship under the generally accepted social norms due to the failure to achieve the objective of the employment contract, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff performed the duty to notify the dismissal in writing due to the failure to specify the grounds for dismissal

hereinafter referred to as "the decision of review of this case"

(i) [Facts 1, 2, and 3, without dispute, which are grounds for recognition, A, and .