1. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on March 7, 2016, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor, is unfair.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the hospital consulting business in the name of “E” in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and the third floor, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was a worker who entered into an employment contract with each Plaintiff on November 6, 2014; the Intervenor C is a worker who entered into an employment contract with each other on December 1, 2014, and the Intervenor D on December 4, 2014.

B. On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff issued to the Intervenor a “written notice of dismissal” to the Intervenor on the same day on the same day as “the Intervenor continued to carry out Internet doping and Internet shopping by continuously using the company’s computer during working hours, but did not recognize it,” and on the same day, “the Intervenor’s failure to comply with the Plaintiff’s business instructions.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On July 2015, the intervenors filed a petition with the Seoul Gangnam Employment and Labor Office for the delayed payment of money and valuables, and the Plaintiff paid the Intervenor an advance notice of dismissal allowance and wages on June 2015 on August 2015.

On September 11, 2015, the intervenors filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal. On September 15, 2015, the intervenors filed an application for monetary compensation order with the purport that the Intervenor would receive money and valuables equivalent to or more than the amount of wages that would have been paid if the Intervenor had provided labor during the period of dismissal without wanting to be reinstated.

E. On September 22, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the Intervenor a content-certified mail and text message to the effect that “the instant dismissal is withdrawn, and the Intervenor goes to work at the workplace from September 25, 2015,” and that the Intervenor did not work until September 25, 2015, and the Plaintiff notified the receiver of the withdrawal of dismissal and reinstatement by means of text messages and content certification on September 22, 2015. However, on September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail and text message that “the replacement is returned to work until October 1, 2015,” while the Plaintiff did not work until September 25, 2015.