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 company that employs approximately 90 full-time workers and runs the business of transporting small aircraft.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on May 1, 2017, and was employed by the Intervenor as the pilot of the helicopter, and the Intervenor B as a pilot of the helicopter on September 1, 2017.

B. On December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the resignation staff submitted by the Intervenor was handled as of December 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On January 25, 2018, the Intervenor C, and the Intervenor B, on January 26, 2018, asserted that the instant notification constitutes an unfair dismissal with the Plaintiff as the respondent to each Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal.

With respect to the claim for remedy by Intervenor C on March 23, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s request for remedy on March 26, 2018, since the submission of the Intervenor’s private staff as to the Intervenor’s request for rescue on March 26, 2018 is null and void as the Intervenor’s voluntary expression of intention and thus, the instant notification constitutes dismissal (in particular, the Intervenor C withdrawn the motion immediately after the Intervenor submitted the resignation and withdrawn it before the Plaintiff reaches the Plaintiff, and in this respect, the instant notification to the Intervenor C constitutes dismissal). In that sense, the Plaintiff violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act by failing to notify the grounds for and time of the dismissal in writing, and thus, was null and void.

The Plaintiff filed an application with the National Labor Relations Commission for review seeking revocation of each of the above initial trials, and the National Labor Relations Commission, on July 5, 2018, concluded with the Intervenor C’s term of labor contract (from May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018) with the Intervenor C, but there exists a benefit of remedy due to the renewal of the term of labor contract. The Intervenor’s submission of private staff constitutes an express intention, and thus, the instant notification is dismissed, and the Plaintiff is null and void because it violated Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act while dismissing the Intervenor.