1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is shown in the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 3, 18, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1.

The participants are corporations established for the purpose of contributing to the promotion of social welfare by conducting projects such as the establishment and operation of medical welfare facilities for the aged, and their affiliated institutions have Cmedical care center and D Medical Care Center.

On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff was appointed as the president of the C Care Center.

On September 14, 2013, the Intervenor held the board of directors on September 174, 2013, and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff from the office of director of C Care Center on the ground that “the Plaintiff removed the Intervenor E from the office of director of C Care Center and failed to comply with the direction to recover the benefits unduly paid to E”. On October 26, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was dismissed from the office of director of C Care Center as of October 31, 2013.

(2) On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2017, Nov. 1, 2013. The former Southern Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for remedy cannot be deemed as an employee prescribed by the Labor Standards Act on December 27, 2013.

On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as the Central 2014 Sea 66, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 2, 2014 on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes a worker prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, but the instant disposition does not constitute an unfair dismissal.”

(hereinafter “instant decision on review” and the Plaintiff’s assertion are based on the premise that the Intervenor is an employee under the Labor Standards Act under the direction and supervision of the Intervenor, and the Intervenor ordered the Plaintiff to remove and recover the benefits.