1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On November 9, 2016, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor, and served in the Pacific-ro 21-ro 4-gil, Gyeongdong-gu, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongdong-gu, the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant factory”).

B. On February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was unfairly dismissed from the Intervenor on November 17, 2016, and applied for remedy to the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on April 6, 2017, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “the purpose of the application for remedy was achieved due to the Intervenor’s notification of reinstatement, and the benefit of remedy was extinguished.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

On April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on April 26, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case on June 30, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”) / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that "the intervenor's own dismissal without any justifiable reason constitutes unfair dismissal, and the plaintiff wishes to receive the amount of wages during the period of dismissal, and that different contents of the decision is unlawful. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that "the decision of this case is unlawful."

B. 1) In a case where an employer withdraws a disposition of dismissal and restores the employee while disputing the validity of a disposition of dismissal by filing an application for remedy against unfair dismissal, the employee’s claim for remedy has been realized by the reinstatement, and thus, the employer is no longer necessary to maintain the procedure for remedy and the benefit of remedy is extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7186, Feb. 8, 2002). Meanwhile, in a case where the employee had already terminated the labor contract relationship at the time of dispute over the validity of dismissal by filing the application for remedy against unfair dismissal.