1. On August 13, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

1. The circumstances leading to the decision on reexamination of this case

A. On May 27, 2011, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed as a driver at the Howon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Chwon”) who operated the Jeju-gu Suwon-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si.

B. Upon the aggravation of the management status of the Hosiwon, the creditors of the Hosiwon established a limited company specializing in camping Cream Group (hereinafter “instant limited company”).

The instant limited liability company established the Plaintiff on April 26, 2012 to entrust the instant golf course to others.

Around June 2012, Howon, the instant limited liability company, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the entrustment of the operation and management of the instant golf course, including the payment of fees to the Plaintiff, instead of entrusting the operation and management of the instant golf course, with a view to maximizeing the business interests of the instant golf course and maintaining its collateral value.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entrusted with the instant golf course with the degree of 29 full-time workers.

C. On August 21, 2012, the Intervenor submitted a written resignation to Howon, and concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff on August 22, 2012, with the term of the contract from August 22, 2012 to August 21, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant employment contract.” The term “business category” in the said employment contract includes the “business category” as the “business category of the article” and the place is without the Intervenor’s signature or seal and only the name seal of the representative of the Plaintiff company is affixed.

Article 7 of the above labor contract provides that “The intervenor has the duty to maintain confidentiality and observe the law,” and that “the intervenor has the duty to comply with the Plaintiff Company’s code of ethics, law and internal control system.”

In addition to the intervenor, 25 workers belonging to the family council, other than the intervenor, submitted a resignation letter to the family council on August 22, 2012, and then the plaintiff and the labor contract are concluded with the plaintiff.