1. The Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The portion resulting from the participation in the appeal costs.

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

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) established the head office in Seoul to employ 1,00 full-time workers and run tourist hotel business by employing 1,000 full-time workers. The Plaintiffs were dismissed on February 14, 201, when performing their duties at the Intervenor’s Seoul Hotel Business Unit and Food Team.

(hereinafter “instant layoff”). B.

On March 10, 201, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant layoff constituted unfair dismissal that does not meet the requirements under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 10, 201. On May 6, 2011, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded on May 6, 2011 that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal that does not meet the requirements for layoff, thereby citing the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy.

C. On May 27, 2011, an intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On July 28, 201, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for reexamination to the effect that the instant layoff satisfies the requirements for layoff and was justifiable, and rendered a decision of reexamination to revoke the initial inquiry court and dismiss the application for remedy by the Plaintiffs.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination.” 【The ground for recognition. The fact that there is no dispute over the instant decision on reexamination, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including the number that does not indicate any of the serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The process of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant decision on reexamination, and the first instance court determined that the instant decision on reexamination was unlawful, on the grounds that the instant decision on reexamination was made in a state where the instant layoff was not recognized as “absent managerial necessity,” and its justification cannot be recognized without any need to consider the remainder of the issues.

B. The defendant and the intervenor.