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. On January 13, 201, the Plaintiff was established on January 13, 201 and ordinarily employs ten workers, engaging in the business of manufacturing, selling, and lending articles related to education, the business of operating the Internet video website, and the business of publishing, and the Intervenor was employed as a director on July 27, 2015.

B. On January 18, 2017, C, the representative of the Plaintiff, complained of difficulties in the management of the company and demanded the employees to resign. D, E, F, G, and H, who were the Plaintiff’s employees, submitted a resignation notice to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. At the time, I (which was already opened to J, but later entered in the name that was the name at the time of the instant case) and the intervenor who was a director did not submit to the Plaintiff a resignation statement.

However, I did not work for the plaintiff on January 31, 2017 after holding a interview with C, and the intervenor did not work for the plaintiff after holding a interview with C on February 20, 2017.

D, E, F, G, H, I, and the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 20, 2017. On June 20, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for unfair dismissal from E on June 20, 2017. The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy from D, F, G, H, and I, and only the Intervenor dismissed the application for remedy from D, F, H, and I on the ground that “it is reasonable to deem the Intervenor was dismissed upon the Plaintiff’s unilateral termination of employment relationship.” The Intervenor’s dismissal from the Intervenor against the Intervenor was unlawful in violation of the written notification requirements of the ground for dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to the wages that the Intervenor could have been paid if the Intervenor had worked normally during the period of dismissal.”

E. On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (2017da762) as to July 28, 2017, and the National Labor Relations Commission stated the same reasons as the initial inquiry tribunal on October 11, 2017.