1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On February 12, 2012, the Plaintiff is a legal entity that employs seven full-time workers engaging in originally intended arts and landscaping business, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is dismissed on May 30, 2013 while serving as the Plaintiff on February 12, 2012.

B. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff deemed that “the Intervenor would be dismissed as of the end of May 2013 due to the Intervenor’s attitude or character, etc.,” and on May 30, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Intervenor of the fact of dismissal verbally (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

C. On July 1, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for the payment of the amount equivalent to wages during the period of original reinstatement and dismissal (KGBC). On August 27, 2013, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that the instant dismissal constituted unfair dismissal, and issued an order for monetary compensation (hereinafter referred to as “instant initial inquiry court”) with the Intervenor to pay KRW 3,730,400 to the Intervenor instead of the Intervenor’s reinstatement.

Accordingly, on September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2013 Deputy 853). However, on December 23, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the dismissal of the Intervenor was null and void, on the ground that there was a serious procedural defect due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notification of the grounds and timing for dismissal in writing, although the Plaintiff did not comply

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition / [the ground for recognition], Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The first intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff had been receiving treatment of mental illness, but was living together with hiding the fact, and the labor contract was added due to mental illness.