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. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On July 11, 2016, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff and served as B.

B. On November 21, 2016, the Intervenor claimed that “the Intervenor was subject to an unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff on August 23, 2016,” and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a request for unfair dismissal on January 11, 2017, which determined that “the dismissal of the Intervenor on August 23, 2016, which was made by the Plaintiff on the part of the Intervenor, would be unfair.” The Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days from the date of receiving the written ruling, paid the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been paid if the Intervenor was reinstated to the former position and had worked normally during the period of dismissal.”

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

On February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on February 2, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission appears to have dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 17, 2017 on the ground that “the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on August 23, 2016, because there were procedural defects, such as the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor on August 23, 2016 without giving written notice of the grounds and timing of the dismissal

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Intervenor retired from office in such a manner as to make a judgment that he/she is unable to continue to work on his/her own, upon the Plaintiff’s recommendation, and did not work unilaterally. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not dismiss the Intervenor. Furthermore, the Intervenor’s assertion that the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed from the Plaintiff contradicts the principle of good faith. Therefore, the instant decision on review based on the premise that the Plaintiff was dismissed from office is unlawful.

나. 관련법령 ▣ 근로기준법 제23조 해고 등의...