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. The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is expressed in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

(1) The Plaintiff is an organization that is organized and organized by the heads of the business offices of the metropolitan area of the company with regular cargo on behalf of the parties. The Plaintiff is running the cargo connection business by employing approximately 20 full-time workers at the 451 complex logistics terminal in Yanpo-si.

Sheet intervenor is a worker dismissed as of September 6, 201, while serving as a driver who was employed by the plaintiff from August 17, 2001 to work as the plaintiff.

B. (i) On May 11, 2012, the Intervenor was subject to rehabilitation treatment until December 28, 2012, with the approval of industrial accident by suffering from the parts and scarcitys, which occurred during the first dismissal and remedy.

After that, on February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff held a personnel committee and took disciplinary action against the Intervenor as of March 15, 2013 on the ground that “the Intervenor is absent without permission for a long time even after the period of additional medical care expires.”

(hereinafter “The First Dismissal”). On March 18, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that the first dismissal of the instant first dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (KWD No. 2013. 430). On May 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor granted unpaid leave until July 15, 2013 to the Intervenor, and if the Intervenor wishes to be reinstated on or before July 15, 2013, the Intervenor agreed to the effect that the Intervenor is immediately reinstated on the date desired by the Intervenor.

(hereinafter “Settlement in this case”). (c)

(i) On July 1, 2013, the Intervenor revealed his intention of reinstatement to the Plaintiff and returned to the Plaintiff on July 4, 2013, and the Plaintiff allocated the “sub-employment” to the Intervenor.

The Intervenor demanded that the Plaintiff allocate “the business of the Plaintiff”, but is not accepted.