1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established around January 2006, which ordinarily employs approximately 30 workers to run a manufacturing business and wholesale and retail business for daily necessities.

On April 3, 2014, the Intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff, stating that “regular workers” in the form of work, “annual salary of KRW 24,00,000,00,” and “30 minutes from 8:30:0 to 7:00 :00 a.m. in the ordinary day,” and began to work as the head of the Plaintiff’s business division.

B. On August 12, 2014, the Intervenor asserted to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission that “the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed from the Intervenor on May 17, 2014,” and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal under Annex 374.

On October 10, 2014, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s petition for remedy, and rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on May 17, 2014, and ordered the Intervenor to pay KRW 9,840,000 to the Intervenor instead of the Intervenor’s reinstatement.

The Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission stated that "the plaintiff violated Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act by failing to notify in writing the reason and time for the dismissal of the intervenor, although the plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated to the intervenor, it is difficult to deem that the dismissal was cancelled or terminated by that order, and the plaintiff was recognized as dismissed by the intervenor on May 17, 2014."

C. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as the Ministry of Labor No. 2014 No. 1155 regarding the said initial inquiry tribunal.

On January 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered an adjudication dismissing the Plaintiff’s above request for reexamination on the same grounds as the above initial inquiry tribunal (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

(a)whether there is a benefit of relief;