1. On November 11, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that was established on September 28, 201 and employs approximately ten full-time workers and engages in industrial complex development and distribution business, etc.

B. On March 8, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor was an employee of the Intervenor, and filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on May 27, 2016, by asserting that the Intervenor was dismissed on his/her own, and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on July 20, 2016, stating that “the Plaintiff constitutes an intervenor’s employee, and the Intervenor did not notify the Plaintiff in writing of his/her dismissal.”

C. On August 22, 2016, the Intervenor dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination on August 22, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court and rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on November 11, 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not a participant’s employee.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that “the instant decision on review based on the premise that the Plaintiff is an intervenor’s employee is unlawful.” 2) The Defendant and the Intervenor asserted that “the Plaintiff is not an intervenor’s employee, but only entered into a partnership agreement with the Intervenor.”

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Determination as to whether a worker is a worker under the Labor Standards Act ought to be based on whether a contract form is an employment contract or a delegation contract is an employment contract, and whether a labor provider provided labor to an employer for the purpose of wages in a business or workplace.

Here, whether or not there is a subordinate relationship is an employer.