1. On May 30, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission applied for reexamination between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on May 30, 2016.

On January 26, 2004, the reason and contents of the decision of reexamination are as follows: (a) on the second floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, about 20 full-time workers are employed, and (b) DBE and members (hereinafter “instant member”).

On August 17, 2015, the Intervenor joining the instant member and served as the head of the Counseling Office.

On December 9, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that “the Intervenor was dismissed from the Plaintiff as of November 21, 2015.”

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on February 3, 2016, on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s recommendation for resignation or dismissal against the Intervenor and ordered the Intervenor to be reinstated, thereby having already achieved the purpose of the request for remedy and having no interest in remedy.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”). An intervenor dissatisfied with it and filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the first inquiry court of this case on March 11, 2016.

On May 30, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor on November 21, 2015, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have issued an order of reinstatement against the Intervenor, and the dismissal was unlawful in the process of failing to notify in writing,” and accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy, “the dismissal the Intervenor made against the Intervenor on November 21, 2015,” and determined that the Intervenor’s request for remedy is unfair, and the Plaintiff paid the Intervenor the remainder of 14,964,853 won, which remains after deducting the appropriate amount of interim income during the period of dismissal from the amount equivalent to wages during the period of dismissal of 192 days (from November 21, 2015 to May 30, 2016).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”), without any dispute, the items in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the legitimacy of the instant decision by reexamination, first of all, the issue is whether the intervenor dismissed the intervenor on Nov. 21, 2015 in relation to the existence of the benefit to apply for remedy for unfair dismissal to the Labor Relations Commission, and around that time.