1. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on March 22, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor, which was unfair as of March 22, 2015.

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

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ordinarily employs eight workers and engages in construction business, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who was employed by the Plaintiff on October 1, 2004 and served as the director in charge of accounting.

B. On September 24, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Plaintiff’s dismissal against the Intervenor on June 30, 2015 constitutes unfair dismissal.”

On November 19, 2015, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff unilaterally terminated the employment relationship with the Intervenor on June 30, 2015, and it was recognized that the Intervenor was dismissed, and the Plaintiff did not notify the Intervenor of the grounds and the time of the dismissal in writing. Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes an unfair dismissal due to procedural defect” (hereinafter referred to as “the first trial court of this case”).

C. On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”), but the National Labor Relations Commission, on March 22, 2016, rendered a decision dismissing the application for reexamination on the same ground as the instant initial inquiry tribunal (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul's each entry of evidence No. 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

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

A. On January 2014, the Intervenor alleged that the Plaintiff’s primary assertion (a) was the Plaintiff’s primary assertion (a) and expressed his/her intent to “be on a maternity leave or childcare leave and to retire after the expiration of the said period,” and the Plaintiff’s consent to the termination of the agreement on the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and does not unilaterally dismiss the Intervenor.

B) Preliminary assertion (the filing period for remedy) and the intervenor unilaterally.