1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The plaintiff is a company that manufactures and installs pipes relating to semiconductors by using approximately 100 full-time workers, and the intervenor was employed on November 9, 2016 and worked as a contact with the plaintiff company.

The Intervenor asserted that the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on November 18, 2016, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (2016da508) on December 16, 2016.

On February 7, 2017, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed from the Intervenor on November 18, 2016, and determined that the Plaintiff would pay the Intervenor the compensation amounting to KRW 14 million in lieu of the original position, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s subsequent order to reinstate the original position issued by the Intervenor was not genuine.

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as prescribed by 2017 Section 217, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the initial inquiry tribunal was justifiable on April 27, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute on the grounds for recognition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the entire purport of the instant decision on reexamination, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination is divided into “a lecture pipeline construction” and “a plastic pipeline construction” according to the type of pipes depending on the type of pipes. As such, the Plaintiff’s employment contract with the Intervenor was terminated as the termination of the contract term.

Therefore, it cannot be viewed as dismissal.

Even if dismissal was made, the plaintiff rejected the order of reinstatement on January 3, 2017 by the intervenor and did not return to the original position. Therefore, it is illegal to order monetary compensation for the subsequent period.