1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On April 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered a restaurant “D” (hereinafter “instant place of business”) operated in Busan-si, and did not attend the work following the day after the Plaintiff’s retirement from the team leader E of the instant place of business around the same day.

B. On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor was forced to make an unfair dismissal from the Intervenor, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission.

C. On May 21, 2015, the Intervenor ordered the Plaintiff to reinstate the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff was determined to reinstate him/her, and thus, he/she goes to work in good faith from May 25, 2015 to work in good faith.”

The Plaintiff appeared at the instant workplace on May 26, 2015 in accordance with the order of reinstatement, but did not continue to work from the next day.

On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for monetary compensation order with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission to seek monetary compensation in lieu of the reinstatement of the original position.

E. On June 4, 2015, the Intervenor issued an order to reinstate that “from June 6, 2015, the Intervenor shall be deemed to have no intention to work and shall be treated as retirement,” and the Plaintiff did not comply therewith.

F. On July 1, 2015, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy by determining that “the Intervenor’s reinstatement order has no benefit of remedy, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the order of reinstatement.”

G. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on October 6, 2015, deeming that “the objective of the application for remedy is achieved due to the Intervenor’s reinstatement order, and there is no interest in remedy.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 3, and 1, 3.