1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is due to the participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On March 8, 2018, the Intervenor publicly announced that “A person who has at least one year’s work experience in the permanent establishment, operation, and maintenance of the same and similar enterprises, such as snow sled sales outlet,” who was employed by the Intervenor as an employee of class 8 general service in the permanent field and is scheduled to be appointed on April 18, 2018.”

(2) On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for the recruitment of the Intervenor according to the instant public notice, and received the final notice from the Intervenor on April 6, 2018, and completed the registration of the appointment of the Intervenor on April 10, 2018.

B. On April 12, 2018 through April 17, 2018, the Intervenor’s revocation of the recruitment of the Plaintiff was examined as to the Plaintiff’s qualification requirements, etc., and on April 26, 2018, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff,” on April 26, 2018, notified the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff is determined to revoke the final pass (determined to be appointed) on the grounds that the required qualification criteria for the public notice of recruitment of class 8 employees (such as sled sledding, etc.) are not satisfied.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (c)

On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff claimed that the instant notification was unfair and applied for remedy to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on June 26, 2018, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff was in a labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor based on the Intervenor’s final notification of passing the decision, but the Plaintiff was in a so-called internal settlement phase that could revoke the appointment of the Intervenor if the Plaintiff was found to be disqualified before the Intervenor issued the final notification of passing the decision, and the Plaintiff did not have the career of operating the removal period required by the Intervenor. Therefore, the Plaintiff did not have any justifiable reason to revoke the appointment of the Plaintiff.”

On August 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 2, 2018, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered judgment on October 31, 2018 by the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission.