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. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s conclusion of the labor contract is a corporation that employs about 40 full-time workers and operates taxi transportation business, etc. The Plaintiff entered into the labor contract with the Intervenor on March 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant labor contract”), and the said labor contract is “the instant labor contract”.

(2) On the same day, the Plaintiff: (a) set the time period (referring to the time period during which an employee actually engaged in his/her duties to identify his/her work ability; hereinafter referred to as “age period”) as six months and submitted to the intervenors an application for trial with the contents of “for example,” and submitted it to the intervenors. (b) From April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff performed the taxi engineer’s duties to the Intervenor.

The chief of the Intervenor stated the term of the labor contract in this case as “from April 5, 2016 to April 4, 2017”.

B. On July 8, 2016, the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff a document verifying that “the termination of the instant employment contract as of June 30, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s unauthorized absence from work and the unpaid transportation income,” but was not served on the Plaintiff due to the absence of the text. (2) On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified by the National Health Insurance Corporation that the Plaintiff was disqualified as the employee insured status as of June 30, 2016.

On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was dismissed, and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission did not give written notice of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act on November 1, 2016.

' by reason of the plaintiff's request for remedy.

3) On November 2, 2016, an intervenor issued an order to reinstate the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff again conducted the duties of taxi engineer at the Intervenor from the fourth day of the same month. 4) Meanwhile, the intervenor dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry court and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on December 2, 2016, but the National Labor Relations Commission on February 24, 2017.