1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

The circumstances leading up to the review decision are those who worked as office assistants at the U.S. Trade Union B branch (hereinafter referred to as “B branch”) located in the Republic of Korea from January 1, 1997.

The intervenor is a company-level trade union with Korean employees working at the usfk base nationwide, and there are 12 branches such as Seoul Branch, Do Government Branch, B Branch, etc. across the country.

On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeongbuk District Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Gyeongbuk District Labor Relations Commission”) against the Intervenor and B on December 27, 2013.

However, on February 17, 2014, Gyeongbuk-do Labor Relations Commission rejected the above request for remedy to the effect that “The employer against the plaintiff should be deemed B branch, so the intervenor is not qualified as the respondent of the request for remedy. In the case of B branch, since the number of regular workers is less than five, it is not subject to Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, it cannot make a request for remedy against B branch.”

On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Central Labor Relations Commission”), but, on June 5, 2014, the Central Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination on the grounds the same as the North Korean Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as the Intervenor cannot be deemed an independent business or place of business from the Intervenor in light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute; (b) Eul’s written evidence Nos. 5 (including the serial number); and (c) the purport of the entire argument as to the lawfulness of the instant decision on reexamination; and (d) the Plaintiff’s bylaws, details of the activities of the Intervenor and its sub-chapter B, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the retrial of this case is unlawful on a different premise.

As shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes and regulations.

(Reasons for Recognition: Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 2). The fact of recognition is that the plaintiff concludes an employment contract between B and B through an interview with the head of the B branch around 197.