1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company established around August 29, 2012, which manufactures and sells railroad supplies.

On April 29, 2015, an intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and began to work as an employee of the Plaintiff’s office from that time.

B. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). C.

On September 2, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission as the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy No. 2015 No. 1404.

On October 26, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the dismissal of the instant case as unfair and issued a remedy order to the Plaintiff. D.

On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under the Ministry of Labor No. 2015 No. 122 on December 22, 2015.

On February 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s above request for reexamination on the ground that “the dismissal in this case constitutes unfair dismissal due to the Plaintiff’s reason for dismissal and the time of dismissal without written notification to the Intervenor” (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul's each entry in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

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

가. 원고의 주장 참가인은 입사 후에 제대로 일을 한 적이 없고, 평소 복장이 매우 불량하여 외국 바이어가 오는 날에도 핫팬츠를 입고 회의에 참석하는 등 근무 태도가 불량하였으며, 원고의 회장인 80세 C에게 욕설을 하였다.

Therefore, the retrial decision of this case that there is a procedural defect in the dismissal made by the plaintiff to the intervenor is improper.

B. According to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, when an employer dismisses a worker, he/she shall notify in writing the reason and time of dismissal.

However, while the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff in this case, the reasons for the dismissal are applicable to the intervenor.