1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul 4 or 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A is a non-profit corporation established under the Credit Unions Act of March 19, 1973.

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) entered into a labor contract (hereinafter “instant primary labor contract”) with the Intervenor to take charge of the business of collecting claims related to the said illegal loan on March 2013, 2013, with the period from June 10, 2013 to December 31, 2013, when the Plaintiff (around March 14, 2014 after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, merged A, and taking over the instant lawsuit; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the instant primary employment contract was terminated on December 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

On January 9, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission as the former Regional Labor Relations Commission in Part 2014 Sea 7, and the former Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application on February 25, 2014.

On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission. However, on May 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “The instant primary labor contract was lawfully renewed on November 20, 2013 (hereinafter “instant secondary labor contract”). Therefore, the Plaintiff unilaterally notified the expiration of the instant primary labor contract constitutes an unfair dismissal.”

The plaintiff's assertion and judgment D are the chief director, who is the plaintiff's representative, and the intervenor and the first employment contract of this case are renewed on November 20, 2013.