1. On August 25, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The grounds for the retirement of the Plaintiff in the course of the instant judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff had been aware of on January 30, 2013, received a proposal from C, the representative director of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (which employs 50 full-time workers and operates the construction business, etc.; hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) who was the Defendant’s representative director of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (which is a company operating the construction business by employing 50 full-time workers), and accepted the proposal.

2. 1. The Intervenor entered the Intervenor.

On February 25, 2013, an intervenor was awarded a subcontract with respect to the construction period of Kuwait’s “Dauseway construction” (hereinafter “Cuwait”) from Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. during the construction period from February 25, 2013 to October 18, 2013.

On March 7, 2013, the Plaintiff left Korea to the Kuwait Construction site and served as the site manager, and returned on October 17 of the same year after completing all construction works.

After returning to Korea, the Plaintiff sent a special leave from October 31, 2013 to 70% of the average wage during the process of leave from November 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, and waiting at home after receiving 70% of the average wage.

On January 15, 2014, the managing director of the Intervenor sent SNS text messages to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2013 that “to be treated as retirement on December 31, 2013.”

hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case"

(1) On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the instant notification was unfair dismissal, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on May 29, 2014 on the ground that “The Plaintiff and the Intervenor concluded the employment contract by setting the original term of the employment contract until the completion of the Kuwait Construction. Therefore, the instant notification is merely a mere notification of the expiration of the employment contract period.”

On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on June 19, 2014, but the National Labor Relations Commission on August 2014.