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. The Plaintiff is a corporation located in Yongcheon-si, which employs about 10 full-time workers, and operates indoor charnel houses and funeral management business, etc.

B. On July 24, 2018, the Intervenor asserted that “the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on May 9, 2018 while he/she was employed by the Plaintiff on July 16, 2015,” and applied for remedy to the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On September 11, 2018, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “the intervenor constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal of the plaintiff made by the plaintiff is not recognized as a ground for dismissal, and the obligation of written notification is not fulfilled, and is unreasonable.”

(Seoul High Court Decision 2012Da412, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case").

On January 10, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's application for reexamination on the same ground as the original inquiry court of this case.

(Central 2018da1141, hereinafter referred to as "the instant decision on reexamination"). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C is a separate organization from the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor has been engaged in C's work while entering the Plaintiff as the wife of C's company, and the Plaintiff separately hires C's employees to conduct the Plaintiff's work. Furthermore, the Intervenor's work as the wife of C's company is merely an autonomous volunteer activity, and it cannot be deemed that C's work has been provided, and it cannot be deemed that C's work has been provided with the auditor's indication. Therefore, the Intervenor's work cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff's worker. Furthermore, the Intervenor's employment relationship was terminated by the Intervenor's expression of his/her retirement, and there is no omission that the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor.

3. Therefore, the intervenor is the plaintiff.