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. An intervenor is a corporation established on January 14, 1985 and engaged in architectural design business, etc. by employing less than five regular workers.

B. On November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor.

On April 30, 2015, the Plaintiff was waiting at his own home after receiving a leave order from the Intervenor, and requested the Intervenor to be reinstated on May 3, 2016.

However, the intervenor notified the plaintiff that he would automatically retire from office as of the 9th of the same month on the same day on the grounds that the plaintiff was not assigned to the position within three months after the temporary retirement order.

C. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the above notification constitutes an unfair dismissal, and filed an application for unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal with Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) as Seoul 2016Danhae 1392.

However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on September 2, 2016 on the ground that the Intervenor’s regular workforce is less than five, and the Intervenor, C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) and D (hereinafter “D”) cannot be deemed as one place of business. Thus, the Plaintiff did not constitute the subject of an unfair leave order and request for remedy against unfair dismissal under the Labor Standards Act.

On October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as the Central 2016 No. 1136.

However, the National Labor Relations Commission also dismissed the plaintiff's application for reexamination on January 11, 2017 on the ground that the number of the intervenor's regular workers is less than five, and the intervenor, C, and D cannot be viewed as one place of business.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1, 23, and 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion in the document belongs to the intervenor with less than five regular employees.

However, the Intervenor and C.