1. On November 30, 2012, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. On February 6, 2012, the date of employment of the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who employs 140 full-time workers of the Plaintiff Company, and engages in newspaper publishing business on February 6, 2012, the content of the first inquiry court’s decision dismissing the application for remedy of the contents of the Intervenor’s request for remedy that is inappropriate to convert the date of employment evaluation of the Intervenor’s work evaluation results into regular employees on April 30, 2012. [Majority Opinion] Revocation of the first inquiry court (main reasons for recognition) [main reasons] is not given an opportunity to undergo an evaluation for six months as prescribed by the rules of employment. The fact that there is no ground for dismissal of the worker during the period of probation, and there is no ground for finding that the worker cannot be considered as being subject to the termination of the period of probation, and that there is no ground for finding that the worker is not subject to the procedure of dismissal, the purport of each of the evidence No. 1-3 (including each number) and the whole pleadings.

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

A. 6 months specified as the probation period under the proviso of Article 9 of the Rules of Employment for the Plaintiff’s Claim is merely a set of the maximum probation period. Since the probation period for two months granted to the Intervenor is sufficient period to determine whether the probationary period should be converted to regular employees, the dismissal of the Intervenor does not violate the rules of employment for the probation period.

In addition, it is reasonable to calculate the final score by averaging two evaluation points in the name of the evaluators, and the average score of the intervenor 56.5 is not subject to regular conversion, and the intervenor is decided to dismiss the intervenor as it is not subject to regular conversion. Since the plaintiff company complies with the dismissal procedure required by the rules of employment, such as notifying the grounds for dismissal in writing, it is justifiable to dismiss the intervenor.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant regulations.

C. 1) On February 6, 2012, the Plaintiff Company employed seven probationary personnel including the Intervenor. 2) The Plaintiff Company C. An evaluator on April 10, 2012.