1. On April 2, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a remedy for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor against the Central 2015 Supplementary Rule 100.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that employs about ten full-time workers from April 24, 2001 to manufactures industrial painting equipment, and the Plaintiff is a person who has served as the chief of the Intervenor’s headquarters in the position from July 14, 2014.

B. From July 14, 2014, while the Plaintiff used the first floor office (hereinafter “instant office”) of the Intervenor Company’s building as a lodging and office space, the Plaintiff was demanded from C, the representative director of the Intervenor Company, to leave the instant office on September 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant request for eviction”).

C. The Plaintiff’s eviction summary on November 10, 2014

The Gu claims that it constitutes unfair dismissal, and made an application for remedy to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 6, 2015 constituted the part of the intervenor company's employees on January 6, 2015, but the outline of the eviction of this case.

The Gu rejected a request for remedy on the ground that it does not fall under dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.

On February 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 3, 2015, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court on April 2, 2015 (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an intervenor’s employee who started his/her service in the Intervenor Company from July 14, 2014 to use the Intervenor’s office as a lodging room. The Intervenor Company’s representative director C unfairly dismissed the Plaintiff by demanding the Plaintiff to leave his/her office used as a lodging room on September 16, 2014.

Nevertheless, the National Labor Relations Commission shall withdraw from the case

Since the Gu judged that it does not fall under dismissal, the review decision of this case is illegal.

(b).