1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. Since its establishment on October 12, 2005, the Plaintiff is a corporation that employs 30 full-time workers at the above location and provides passenger transport services, and an intervenor is notified on January 26, 201 that his/her employment contract is terminated on January 30, 201 while he/she was employed by the Plaintiff on February 13, 201.

B. On April 15, 201, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the Intervenor’s dismissal of the Intervenor did not disadvantage the Intervenor’s leading role as the president of the trade union site and did not constitute unfair labor practices, but on July 5, 201, the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss all the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s dismissal of the Intervenor did not have any effect on the above termination date of the labor contract even if the Plaintiff voluntarily stated or did not exist after entering into the labor contract.

(No. 201 Schedule / Subno. 7).

Accordingly, the intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 12, 201. On October 19, 201, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the part concerning unfair dismissal among the above decision of the Local Labor Relations Commission of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province on the ground that the termination date of the labor contract entered into between the plaintiff and the intervenor on October 19, 201 was voluntarily recorded by the plaintiff and cannot be the content of the labor contract since the termination date of the labor contract cannot be the contents of the labor contract. Therefore, the plaintiff's termination of the labor relationship with the intervenor on the ground that the termination date of the contract term constitutes unfair dismissal. The measure that terminated the labor relationship with the intervenor on January 30, 201 was determined as unfair dismissal, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the intervenor the amount equivalent to the wages that the plaintiff could have been paid during the dismissal period. However, the plaintiff'