The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

The plaintiff is a corporation that is established on January 13, 2015 and ordinarily employs about 10 workers, and is engaged in building work business, civil engineering work business, etc.

On May 14, 2019, an intervenor reported interview, etc. and notified the Plaintiff to work at work from the Plaintiff, but on May 28, 2019, “the plan for employment was revoked” received contact with an excursion ship.

(hereinafter “Revocation of Employment”). On July 1, 2019, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the Plaintiff unfairly revoked the appointment of the Intervenor on May 28, 2019.”

On August 26, 2019, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “The unilateral revocation of employment regardless of the Intervenor’s intent even though the employment relationship had been established between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor constitutes dismissal, and the Intervenor violated the Intervenor’s duty of written notification of dismissal without any ground for dismissal. Therefore, the revocation of employment in this case constitutes unfair dismissal.”

On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff rejected the procedures for new employment of the Intervenor and did not consent to the conclusion of the labor contract. Therefore, there was no mutual agreement between both parties on the conclusion of the labor contract

Even if the plaintiff paid employment to the intervenor, the plaintiff was employed as a regular employee in the absence of any defects in the probation period of three months, and the intervenor appeared late at the last two hours on Saturdays, and there is a negative factor in good faith and in the suspension of duty.