1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On January 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for agricultural crops cultivation at a B farm located in Gyeong-gun in Gyeongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant site”) with the Montreals Korea Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Mosto”), with a two-year term of contract, with the purpose of dispatching workers.

On January 1, 2012, when the contract term expires, the Plaintiff and Montreal concluded the said contract again on January 1, 2012.

At the instant site, the Intervenor and seven workers were employed by the Plaintiff.

On January 1, 2010, an intervenor joined the Plaintiff Company and served as C at the instant site, and submitted to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2012 a written consent for termination of the employment contract to the effect that he/she would resign as of December 31, 2012, and the Plaintiff accepted it and then dismissed the Intervenor on December 31, 2012.

The Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeong-nam Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Intervenor was actually dismissed by the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor, even though the Intervenor’s declaration of intention to resign was not effective as a declaration of intention to resign, but the Gyeong-nam Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Intervenor’s application for remedy on January 24, 2013.

On May 12, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment to the effect that the Intervenor’s rejection of an application for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission was unfair on the ground that the Intervenor’s written consent to the termination of the labor contract on November 27, 2012 cannot be deemed to be due to the truth, and that the Plaintiff’s act of cutting down the employment contract with the Intervenor constitutes unfair dismissal, and that the dismissal of the Intervenor made by the Plaintiff on December 31, 2012 is unfair. The Plaintiff returned the Intervenor to the original position, and paid the amount equivalent to the wages that the Intervenor could have received if the Intervenor had worked normally during the period of dismissal (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”).

[Grounds for recognition] Nos. 1, 2, and 1.