1. On November 25, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief to unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant on November 25, 2014.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. From May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff is a person operating a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name of “D” by ordinarily employing 10 full-time workers in Ildong-gu, Youngdong-gu C from May 16, 2013.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was engaged in the instant restaurant for six days from June 26, 2014 to July 1, 2014.

B. On July 10, 2014, the Intervenor asserted to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that “the notice that the Plaintiff would not work on July 2, 2014 constitutes an unfair dismissal” and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Plaintiff under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2014 and No. 978.

On September 4, 2014, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the period of labor contract concluded between the Intervenor and the Plaintiff is from June 26, 2014 to August 25, 2014, and thus, it has no interest in remedy upon the termination of the labor relationship.”

C. On September 22, 2014, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under the Ministry of Labor No. 2014 Addenda961 regarding the said initial inquiry tribunal.

On November 25, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission recognized the Intervenor’s relief benefit on the ground that “it is difficult to readily conclude that the period of the labor contract concluded between the Intervenor and the Plaintiff is two months,” and concluded a retrial ruling (hereinafter “instant retrial ruling”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s dismissal as of July 2, 2014, on the ground that “the Plaintiff, on July 2, 2014, told the Intervenor to resign from the company by phoneing to the Intervenor, but this constitutes an unfair dismissal due to the failure to notify the Intervenor in writing.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether to conclude a labor contract and the Intervenor are one week from June 26, 2014 to one week.