1. On April 30, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission applied for a review of unfair dismissal C between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a specialized industrial technology institute established on January 10, 2001 pursuant to Article 42 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act, and is a corporation that engages in mining technology-related research and development, business support, etc. using approximately 250 full-time workers.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was a person who has a doctor’s degree in the field of optical technology, and entered the Plaintiff as an appointed researcher on July 8, 2002 with a labor contract term of three years, and then renewed the labor contract and served as the researcher on several occasions.

B. On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “the Plaintiff shall be dismissed automatically from office as of September 7, 2017 pursuant to Articles 11(5) and 37(2) of the Personnel Management Regulations of the Plaintiff due to the termination of the term of the labor contract due to the failure to meet the standards for re-election.”

(F) The dismissal from office on a yearly basis (hereinafter referred to as “the removal from office of this case”) and the notice of dismissal from office (hereinafter referred to as “the notice of dismissal from office of this case”).

The Intervenor asserted that “the removal of this case made by the Plaintiff to the Intervenor on September 7, 2017 constitutes unfair dismissal” in the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, and applied for remedy against unfair dismissal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application for remedy”). D.

On February 1, 2018, Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission: (a) accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the dismissal in this case constitutes dismissal subject to restrictions under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and it is difficult to view that the dismissal in this case constitutes dismissal subject to restrictions under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act; and (b) the dismissal in this case constitutes unfair dismissal.”

(D) The first inquiry court of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the first inquiry court of this case and applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission.