1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation ordinarily employing eight workers and engaging in the business of raising and selling pigs.

On August 1, 2013, an intervenor entered the Plaintiff corporation and was in charge of overall control over the management of pigs breeding farms operated by the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor did not prepare a labor contract when becoming a member of the Intervenor, and completed the contract term on December 31, 2013, stating that “from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013,” and “from December 31, 2013,” the preparation date is “two pages,” and the contract term is written in one page.”

B. On March 3, 2014, the head of the Plaintiff’s management department C read the Plaintiff’s employees, including the Intervenor, to the office, and read the document “Notice of Termination of the Labor Contract” to the Plaintiff’s employees, including the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the document included that “the Plaintiff’s employment contract is terminated with the Intervenor as of March 3, 2014 at a level of suffering sharing for prompt normalization.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (c)

On March 13, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission received an intervenor’s request for remedy on May 15, 2014 on the ground that “The instant notification constitutes dismissal because the Intervenor is an employee with no fixed period of time, and the Plaintiff violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act because the Plaintiff did not notify the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal in writing, thereby the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal.”

On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 1, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on review”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, and Eul’s Evidence No. 1, 2, and 3.