1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the decision by a retrial is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment by the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) as a general director of the instant hospital, the plaintiff was paid KRW 500,000,000 per month in consideration of the management office's employees and ambulances's management duties, review and approval of the details of expenditure of the hospital, employment-related duties, civil petition response duties, etc., and entered into a labor contract with the intervenor, and entered into four insurance policies. Accordingly, the plaintiff was also an employee of the instant hospital. Thus, the decision of the retrial of this case, which dismissed the plaintiff's request for reexamination on the ground that the plaintiff was not a worker under the Labor Standards Act, was unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff was merely a part of the plaintiff's employees of the instant hospital as an investor of the instant hospital, and is not a worker under the Labor Standards Act. Thus, the decision of the retrial of this case on the premise above is legitimate).

Even if the term of the Plaintiff’s labor contract is up to February 28, 2015, and the Intervenor expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew the labor contract one month prior to the expiration of the term of the said labor contract, the said labor contract was terminated on June 11, 2015, which is the date of the instant decision on reexamination, and thus, the Plaintiff’s interest in remedy was extinguished

Although the Defendant and the Intervenor asserted to the effect that there was no interest in the instant lawsuit on the ground that the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated on December 28, 2015, the Defendant and the Intervenor are prior to the date of the initial trial of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant and the Intervenor’s assertion is prior to the date of the initial trial of the instant case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's request for remedy against unfair dismissal was dismissed.