1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The Plaintiff was established on October 6, 201 and engaged in the manufacture and painting of steel structures, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “ intervenors”) was engaged in the pre-processing and sanding work at the Plaintiff’s place of business from November 10, 2015 to February 26, 2016, and drafted a written labor contract with the Plaintiff on December 17, 2015, with the term of the contract from November 10, 2015 to November 9, 2016.

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff’s representative director D told the Intervenor that “I will not be able to do with good faith and work” (hereinafter “instant notification”), and the Intervenor asserted that the said notification was unfair, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) around May 26, 2016. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy with the Intervenor on July 21, 2016 on the ground that “I will not be the Intervenor’s employer.”

On August 26, 2016, the intervenors were dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry court, and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as Central 2016da967 on August 26, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court and accepted the application for remedy by the intervenors on November 28, 2016 on the ground that “the Plaintiff is the Intervenor’s employer and the instant notification constitutes an unfair dismissal.”

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff received the written decision on reexamination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the entire argument, and the purport of the decision on reexamination of this case, are legitimate, and only a written labor contract is prepared with the intervenor in the name of the plaintiff, since the business registration of the E company, which is the subcontractor, is delayed, and since the representative F of the E company paid part of the benefits to the intervenor, the intervenor's employer shall be deemed the representative F of the E company, not the plaintiff.

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

Judgment

The plaintiff is an employer of the intervenor.