1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Circumstances and details of the decision on reexamination;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that was established on September 25, 1979 and ordinarily employs approximately thirty workers and operates financial business, etc.

The Plaintiff is notified by the Intervenor on March 20, 2018, who was employed by the Intervenor on January 2, 2018 and was dismissed on March 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

B. On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the dismissal of the instant case was an unfair dismissal.

On June 12, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor refused to hire the Plaintiff and dismissed the Plaintiff is justifiable.”

C. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On November 2, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's request for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry court.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The employer should notify the worker of the specific and substantial grounds for dismissal even in the case of refusal of the regular employment after the end of the available period. However, the written notice of dismissal issued by the Intervenor to the Plaintiff does not specifically indicate the Plaintiff’s rating points and evaluation details. As such, the Intervenor did not fulfill his/her duty to notify the Plaintiff of the reasons for dismissal in writing. 2) The Intervenor’s personnel regulations provide that “If the service performance of an employee in the probation period is less than a certain point, the president may ex officio dismiss the employee

However, on March 20, 2018, the notice of dismissal of the Intervenor was not made by the resolution of the board of directors of the Intervenor.

Therefore, the notice of dismissal of this case is null and void.

3. The dismissal of the instant case due to such procedural defects is unfair dismissal.