1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged if the whole purport of the pleading is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 2.

The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the termination of the contract constitutes unfair dismissal after being employed by the Intervenor while the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor, who was employed by the Intervenor. The Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss the above application for remedy on February 28, 2014.

B. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with this, and the plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission through a certified labor affairs consultant B.

On May 22, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the instant decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination. On June 10, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission sent a written decision on reexamination to the said certified labor affairs consultant B, who is the Plaintiff’s agent, and served on June 13, 2014.

2. As the Defendant’s determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that the period for filing the lawsuit expires, Article 31(2) and (3) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “In the case of a decision on review made by the National Labor Relations Commission, an administrative litigation shall be instituted within 15 days from the date the written decision on review was served, and if no lawsuit is filed within the said period, the said decision on review shall become final and conclusive

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s agent’s receipt of the original copy of the instant decision on reexamination on June 13, 2014, is obviously apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination on July 1, 2014.

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserted that “the instant complaint was sent to this court at the time within 15 days prescribed by the Act from June 13, 2014,” but the time of filing the complaint is not at the time of delivery of mail but at the time of receipt of the court. This is because the time of receipt is the same as above.