The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the construction and construction business of industrial facilities by employing 57 regular workers.

From February 9, 2015, the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) served as the chief of the construction site at the construction site of the Korea Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Corporation”) that the Plaintiff was awarded a contract from Korea Development Corporation.

On March 19, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor was dismissed on March 20, 2015 on the ground that the Intervenor was lacking professional knowledge of the Intervenor’s voltage tank and on-site management ability.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). (b)

On March 23, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the instant dismissal was unfair, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission. On May 18, 2015, the former Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal.

(C) Jeonnam 2015, 100, hereinafter referred to as "First Inquiry Tribunal").

On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On September 2, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination.

(C) Nos. 1, 2, and 6-3, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

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

A. The plaintiff's allegation 1 intervenor is a worker of E&Wn corporation who was subcontracted the construction work of this case from the plaintiff and is not the plaintiff's worker, and even if the plaintiff's worker is the plaintiff's worker, there are justifiable grounds for dismissal of this case.

In other words, in order to carry out the instant construction, expertise on the pressure tank is required, and the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor on the premise that the Intervenor had expertise on the pressure tank, and the Intervenor did not have such expertise.