1. On July 17, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of manufacturing electronic equipment with the degree of 18 regular workers employed.

On January 25, 2011, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) was employed by the Daescur Committee and continued to serve as skilled industrial personnel on April 24, 2012.

On December 2, 2013, an intervenor entered the Plaintiff Company and was a skilled industrial personnel at the production quality control team to repair sound broadcasting equipment, and the Plaintiff paid benefits equivalent to 100% of the monthly salary determined by the intervenor.

B. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor dismissed the Intervenor as of February 27, 2014, stating the grounds for dismissal on the part of the Intervenor, stating that “the Intervenor’s business ability to perform the duties required by the Plaintiff is deemed difficult, not only the relevant team, but also the overall flow of the Plaintiff Company.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On March 3, 2014, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the dismissal of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the application for remedy on April 28, 2014.

On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as to May 20, 2014. On July 17, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor cannot be deemed as a probationary worker, and the Plaintiff’s dismissal should undergo a resolution of the disciplinary committee prescribed by the rules of employment while dismissing the Intervenor. However, as the Plaintiff was dismissed without going through the resolution of the disciplinary committee, the instant dismissal was unlawful on the ground that the procedural defect exists

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). (e)

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not prepare a written labor contract with the Intervenor.

However, the Plaintiff’s industrial technical personnel B, C, D, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “B, etc.”)