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

A. The Intervenor is a religious organization established under the control of the Korea Sports Association on May 26, 1966. The Plaintiff is a person who joined the Intervenor on December 21, 2014 and was performing duties as a manager of the church cleaning, bus driving, etc. until his/her dismissal on September 24, 2017.

B. On September 24, 2017, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff, and issued a written notice of dismissal stating that “I, as the Intervenor’s inspector, comply with the direction of his/her duties while serving as the Intervenor’s inspector, I shall comply with the order of his/her duties and notify the Intervenor at a regular meeting on September 24, 2017.”

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

On October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to unfair dismissal from the Intervenor. On October 12, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission(2017da245).

On December 7, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment that “the intervenor is a workplace to which the Labor Standards Act prescribed the application for remedy against unfair dismissal is applied by at least five regular workers, and the dismissal of this case is unfair as it is not justified.”

On January 16, 2018, an intervenor dissatisfied with the initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as Ministry of Labor No. 2018 No. 52. On March 16, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission decided to revoke the initial inquiry court and dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for remedy, deeming that “the Plaintiff’s application for remedy is unlawful because the employer’s work place is not less than five full-time workers, and the Labor Standards Commission’

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 18, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. At the time of dismissal of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, eight workers who were receiving monthly salary from the Intervenor, who were engaged in the work, were two assistant pastors, three assistant directors, two assistant teachers dispatched overseas, and eight assistant teachers, respectively, and the Intervenor.