1. On July 19, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a stock company established for the purpose of photographing sewage pipes and dredging water supply and sewerage systems, and is a specialized institution for technical diagnosis registered under the Sewerage Act. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff and worked for the Plaintiff from August 17, 2015.

B. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content as follows to the intervenors:

(hereinafter the Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal on February 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). Title (a): Notice of dismissal

1. Despite the fact that he is working as a member of the staff of the work division of the Republic of Korea, he/she performed an inappropriate act on his/her job attitude, such as transfer of his/her duties to other employees, use SNS during working hours, etc., and left his/her workplace voluntarily, left his/her work site, and did not timely process his/her duties, and did not correct any pecuniary damage to the company, he/she notified the outsourcing company of his/her dismissal as of January 19, 2016, because he/she did not correct it, and he/she knew that he/she was dismissed on February 20 of the same year, and that he/she did not work after this notification.

(hereinafter referred to as "not more than 50

C. On February 29, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy as to the dismissal of the instant case with the Plaintiff as the respondent with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission as the Plaintiff.

Although Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission was registered as an employee on April 21, 2016 in the list of persons holding insured status and on the ledger of wages, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as an employee under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor for wage purposes in the Plaintiff’s subordinate relationship with the Plaintiff. Although there are the fact that E and F had worked for a short period on December 2015, it is not reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s employee was a full-time employee since January 2016, even if G is included in the number of regular employees, the Plaintiff’s employee is considered as the Intervenor, G, H, and I4.