1. On May 24, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission applied for a review of unfair dismissal relief between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a company that engages in electronic commerce, etc., such as the operation of the “E shopping mall” (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

Plaintiff

B is the Plaintiff Company’s intra-corporate director and representative, and separately, is engaging in newspaper publishing business, such as “G” in the trade name.

(hereinafter) The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who, from December 26, 2017 to December 14, 2018, performed the duties of operating the shopping mall in this case at the Plaintiff Company.

B. On December 14, 2018, Plaintiff B notified the Intervenor that his employment relationship was terminated orally.

C. On December 28, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission to the effect that “the dismissal of the Plaintiff against the Intervenor on December 14, 2018 is unfair. The Plaintiffs filed an application for unfair dismissal with the purport that “the amount equivalent to the wages that the Intervenor would have received if he/she had been reinstated to his/her former post and had worked normally during the period of dismissal.”

On February 26, 2019, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized that dismissal made by the Plaintiff Company on December 14, 2018 is unfair on the ground that “the dismissal was made by the Intervenor on December 14, 2018, because the Plaintiff constitutes a single workplace and the number of full-time employees is at least five.” The Plaintiff Company is the workplace to which Articles 23(1) and 28 of the Labor Standards Act apply. The Plaintiff Company violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act because the Plaintiff Company dismissed the Intervenor on December 14, 2018 by not giving written notice of the reason and time of the dismissal.” The Plaintiff Company determined that the dismissal made by the Intervenor on December 14, 2018 is unfair. The Plaintiff Company paid the amount equivalent to the wages that would have been paid if the Intervenor was reinstated within 30 days from the date of receiving the written decision of the first instance.”