1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are all the plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. From February 1, 2008, Plaintiff A and B were employed by Plaintiff C from February 7, 2008; Plaintiff D from June 1, 2009 to E Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”); and the Intervenor was employed by nine full-time workers from June 1, 2009 to August 1, 2010 and was engaged in the management business of the instant apartment.

B. On July 2, 2010, the Plaintiffs received from the Intervenor a notice from the Intervenor that “the management entity of the instant apartment to be changed from the Intervenor to the entrusted management entity, and thus the contract is terminated on August 1, 2010 (hereinafter “the notice of the termination of the instant contract”). The Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the notice of the termination of the instant contract falls under unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 9, 2010.

C. On November 26, 2010, the intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court and dismissed all the plaintiffs' request for remedy on the following grounds.

The Plaintiffs entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time, and the alteration of the apartment management method to the entrusted management from the autonomous management constitutes grounds for the expiration of the term of the employment contract, which refers to “not later than the time of transfer and takeover of the management business” as stipulated in the employment contract. Therefore, the notification

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if an order for remedy following the application for unfair dismissal is issued with respect to this safety defense, if such order is objectively deemed impossible to be realized, barring any special circumstance such as the provision that limits the opportunity for re-employment, there is no benefit in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the determination of the National Labor Relations Commission, and a claim for wages that can be recovered by filing a civil lawsuit, such as restoration of honor only the de facto benefit, and a lawsuit for wage claim, is based on the