1. As to the case of application for reexamination between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor on December 11, 2015.

On September 13, 2007, the details and details of the decision of reexamination were established for the purpose of producing indoor advertising materials. The defendant's assistant intervenor (hereinafter "the intervenor") entered the plaintiff and worked as the deputy head on October 25, 2012 and worked as the plaintiff.

On May 11, 2015, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the intervenor was unfairly dismissed. On July 7, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor was entitled to file an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Labor Relations Commission in accordance with Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act, since the Plaintiff’s workplace has ordinarily employed at least five workers. However, the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the dismissal was unfair because the Plaintiff did not notify in writing while dismissing the intervenor.”

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on December 11, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion contrary thereto, on the ground that “the date on which the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor ought to be deemed as February 13, 2015,” and that “the period for filing an application for remedy was not excessive.” Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination was dismissed on the same ground as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission’s determination.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on review”). 【No dispute exists on the grounds of recognition, the respective statements in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the entire purport of the decision on review of this case are as shown in the attached Form of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

On February 10, 2015, the date when the plaintiff notified the intervenor of his oral dismissal is the date when the plaintiff notified the intervenor of his oral dismissal.

However, since the intervenor filed a request for remedy against the above dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on May 12, 2015 after the period of remedy as stipulated by Article 28(2) of the Labor Standards Act (within three months from the date of the dismissal, etc.) from that time, the intervenor was illegal and contrary to this.