1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. An intervenor is a corporation established around September 8, 201 and runs a wholesale and retail business.

On September 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor and the Plaintiff as an employer (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) with the Intervenor and the Intervenor as an employer, and the said employment contract included the following:

3. The term of one labor contract;

(a) the contract period is from September 9, 2015 (no fixed, until September 201);

(b)the probation period shall be three months, and the contract may be terminated without separate procedures, even during the contract period, if it is deemed that the continued work is not available due to the worker’s probationary evaluation (such as the ability to perform the duty/the attitude/the performance degree/the adaptation ability, etc.) or management circumstances;

B. On December 8, 2015, the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff a document stating the following (hereinafter “instant document”) as a content-certified mail with the title “cases of notification of the termination of labor relations (the refusal of this employment)” (hereinafter “instant document”). The Plaintiff received the document around that time:

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”). As a result of an evaluation conducted in accordance with Article 10 (Management) of the Rules of Employment of the Republic of Korea and the criteria for the evaluation of probationary employees, the Intervenor’s dismissal of the Plaintiff, which was made by the written notice of this case, will be notified of the termination of the employment relationship (this refusal) on December 8, 2015, as the result of the evaluation conducted in accordance with the criteria for evaluation of probationary employees.

C. On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission as the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2015, Dec. 11, 2015.

On February 5, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s petition for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes a probationary worker, and there exists reasonable grounds to refuse the Plaintiff’s principal employment.”

On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (2016) on March 15, 2016.