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

A. The intervenor is a corporation that runs the business of a private teaching institute with 230 regular employees.

On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) between the Intervenor and the Intervenor, the Plaintiff made English lectures to the students in the private teaching institute operated by the Intervenor (Article 2) (the term of the contract under Article 4) is from March 3, 2014 to March 2, 2015, and the period of the contract is from March 3, 2014 to March 2, 2015, and the period between the first three months after the conclusion of the contract shall be deemed a provisional contract (provisional contract) and the intervenor shall be converted into a regular contract after comprehensively assessing the Plaintiff’s preparation for lectures, the progress of the curriculum, the response to the students, etc. (Article 6). If the Plaintiff is deemed disqualified during the period of the provisional contract or the Plaintiff’s response to the students’ lectures is negative at least 70 points at the time of assessing the degree of satisfaction of the students’ lectures.

(Article 10) entered into an agreement on the consignment of services with the content of the agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). B. The contract written at the time is “instant contract” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).

On May 17, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the instant contract was terminated as of May 18, 2014 pursuant to Article 10 of the instant contract, on the ground that the students raised a complaint against the Plaintiff’s lectures.

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

On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on October 10, 2014.

On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on January 6, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 intervenor entered into the contract of this case.