1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff employs 17 full-time workers and aims at promoting basic projects, etc. for the development of A-time sports, and the intervenor B was employed on May 1, 2010, and the intervenor C was employed by the plaintiff on August 1, 2009 and worked at each of the plaintiff's secretariat.

The Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on December 31, 2012, as the Party A supported the Plaintiff’s budget significantly reduced the Plaintiff’s operating subsidy of the Secretariat among the budget year 2013.

On March 26, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with D Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the above dismissal of the Intervenor was not justified, and D Regional Labor Relations Commission made the application for unfair dismissal under the same year.

5. Upon accepting the Intervenor’s assertion on December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff rendered a decision that “the dismissal of the Intervenor made against the Intervenor on December 31, 2012 is unfair. The Plaintiff is reinstated to his former position, and paid the amount equivalent to the wages that the Intervenor could have received if the Intervenor had worked during the dismissal period.” On September 10, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination of the first instance trial court (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Based on recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to Gap evidence 1-1, No. 2, and No. 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings, is an organization wholly dependent on the Plaintiff’s operating subsidy. The Plaintiff’s reduction in the Plaintiff’s operating subsidy out of the budget for 2013 by excluding two employees of the Plaintiff’s secretariat from being supported with personnel expenses. As such, the Plaintiff had no choice but to dismiss the Intervenor for an urgent managerial reason.

During that process, the Plaintiff requested the reorganization of the budget compilation at A, but the Plaintiff was rejected, thereby making every effort to avoid dismissal, and the selection of the person subject to dismissal was fair, and the agreement was reached in good faith between labor and management.

Therefore, dismissal of the intervenors is required.