1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs 15 full-time workers at the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building and the third floor and engages in model domain business, etc.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person employed on February 1, 2017 and employed by the Plaintiff.

B. On January 8, 2019, the Intervenor asserted that “the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed on October 15, 2018” with the Plaintiff as the respondent to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal.

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s request for remedy on March 7, 2019 on the ground that “the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on October 15, 2018, and was illegal as the grounds for dismissal are not recognized.”

C. On April 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking revocation of the said initial inquiry tribunal. However, on June 10, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the said initial inquiry tribunal (hereinafter “instant review decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 8, 10 to 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s representative, on October 15, 2018, sent to the Intervenor a “post at home” but on the same day on October 13:32, 2018, it cannot be deemed as a conclusive declaration of dismissal, given that the Intervenor sent the Intervenor a “on a normal basis to commute to and from home”. Although the Intervenor confirmed the Plaintiff’s normal attendance at work, the Intervenor did not work at the Plaintiff’s workplace from October 16, 2018, and the Plaintiff sent a document verifying that “the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor.” As such, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on October 16, 2018 to October 29, 2018, on the ground that the Intervenor was absent from work without permission.