1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a company that ordinarily employs approximately 90 workers and engages in the production and sale of clothes, etc.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) entered the Plaintiff Company on October 31, 2016 and served as the Head of the General Affairs Team.

B. The vice president C of the Plaintiff Company stated, around January 18, 2017, that the Intervenor “ will have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been working.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the statement of the vice president of the instant case”).

On January 20, 2017, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the statement of the vice president of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal.

On March 17, 2017, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received an application for remedy from the Plaintiff to the effect that “the statement of the vice president of the instant case constitutes dismissal of the Intervenor, and that the Plaintiff Company did not notify the Intervenor in writing, so the dismissal is unlawful.”

Plaintiff

On April 14, 2017, the company filed an application for review seeking the revocation of the said determination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on June 27, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rejected the said application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant reexamination”) with the same purport as the said determination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 7-9, Eul evidence 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The statement of the vice president of the Plaintiff Company 1 concerning the summary of the argument of the Plaintiff Company is merely merely a superior CA, and C does not have the authority to decide on dismissal of the Intervenor.

The contents of mobile phone text messages sent to the intervenors by the representative director of the Plaintiff Company after the statement of the vice president of the instant case do not purport to recognize dismissal of the intervenors.

Rather, after the statement of the vice president of the instant case, the intervenor expressed his intention to retire by phone call to the head of the personnel team of the Plaintiff Company D.

. All these circumstances.