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.

The Plaintiff, on January 18, 2008, established C dental clinic (hereinafter “instant dental clinic”) on the Macheon-si D and 2nd floor of Macheon-si on January 18, 2008, and run a dental clinic using approximately eight regular employees, while the Intervenor was working at C dental clinic from August 13, 2014.

On June 13, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Intervenor stating “I, at present, dismiss him from the department of dental management of this case from this moment. I will not attend the future, and I will not look at again. If I look at, I will see, at the court, the text message.”

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). On July 17, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair dismissal against the instant dismissal. On September 14, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy against the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor was not a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

On October 19, 2015, the intervenor appealed and applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission on October 19, 2015. On January 12, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission: (a) the intervenor constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor for wage purposes in subordinate relationship; and (b) the dismissal of the instant case constitutes an unfair dismissal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, which stipulates that the reasons for the dismissal and the time of dismissal should be notified in writing; and (c) the intervenor should be reinstated to the Plaintiff and the amount equivalent to the wages during

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “the instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s assertion on the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case, the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case cannot be reinstated to the original position after the Plaintiff’s closure of the instant dental work on February 29, 2016, should be revoked.

The plaintiff became aware of the intervenor around March 2005.