1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The plaintiff is a party involved in the decision of this case. The plaintiff is a company established on March 4, 199 and engaged in a spouse's information service business. The intervenor is a person who joined the plaintiff on August 19, 2013 and worked as a kererer.

On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff informed the Intervenor of the dismissal of the instant dismissal disposition as to the Intervenor on the ground of ① job ability/performance shortage, ② unfaithful service and neglect of duty, ③ business instruction objection type, ④ disturbance of workplace order (e.g., concealment of profit-making activities after leakage and keeping of the member information held by the Plaintiff at the time of his/her temporary retirement), ⑤ additional (e.g., embezzlement of public funds (hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal ground”), ⑤ additional (e., “the instant dismissal ground” and (e) the concealment of profit-making activities after leakage and keeping of the above member information,” and (e) the Plaintiff was dismissed on the same day as the Intervenor rejected the recommendation.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”). On January 2, 2014, an intervenor in the first inquiry tribunal of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant dismissal disposition constitutes unfair dismissal. On February 21, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy.

On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal of the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on March 19, 2014, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on June 26, 2014 on the ground that “the Plaintiff falls under at least five workplaces at all times and the Labor Standards Act is applied, and the instant dismissal disposition

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of the following grounds: (a) there is no dispute over the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination of reexamination”); (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of