부당해고구제재심판정취소
1. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on March 10, 2016, between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, shall be unfair.
The circumstances leading up to the review decision are companies established for the purpose of metal tank manufacturing business, factory machinery and equipment pipeline construction business, etc. on April 21, 2003. The defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "participating") is the plaintiff's director from February 28, 2006 to July 22, 2008, the director of the plaintiff company from July 22, 2008 to March 31, 2014, and the plaintiff's auditor from April 1, 2014 to the non-registered senior executive director from August 26, 2015 while serving as the non-registered senior executive director.
On August 26, 2015, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, alleging that dismissal made by the Plaintiff Company was unfair. On November 17, 2015, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the application for remedy without determining the legitimacy of dismissal on the ground that “the intervenor cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act because it is difficult to view the intervenor as a worker who provided labor under a subordinate relationship that actually used for the purpose of wages, and it is not a party to the application for remedy.”
(In full view of the facts that the intervenor of Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the early trial tribunal") is dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial trial tribunal, and applied for review seeking cancellation of the initial trial tribunal to the National Labor Relations Commission on December 8, 2015. The National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial trial tribunal on March 10, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the intervenor on March 31, 2014 without being registered as a director on the corporate register and retired from the auditor on March 31, 2014, determined that the intervenor was paid a certain amount of wages each month in return for labor, and recognized that the intervenor was subject to restrictions on working hours and places, and that the intervenor was subject to considerable direction and supervision from the representative director in the course of conducting competitive bidding, it is reasonable to deem that the intervenor was an employee under the Labor Standards Act in subordinate relationship with the plaintiff company and was dismissed on August 26, 2015.