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 on August 5, 1959 and established in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as its head office in Gangnam-gu, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing synthetic resin products by employing 150 full-time workers while operating its subsidiary in China, etc.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff on January 30, 2009 and served as the head of the legal entity, the head of the business management team, the head of the business management headquarters, and the head of the headquarters of the Plaintiff’s local corporation (hereinafter referred to as “China corporation”).

B. On January 1, 2012, the Intervenor entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to commission the Intervenor as a regular director (hereinafter “instant employment contract”). However, on January 16, 2013, the Intervenor was notified by the Plaintiff that the instant employment contract was terminated on March 25, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal disposition”) C.

On April 8, 2013, the intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the dismissal of this case constitutes unfair dismissal, and the case was transferred to Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 26, 2013. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, on June 3, 2013, accepted the application for remedy on the ground that the plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and that the dismissal was unfair dismissal made by the plaintiff on March 25, 2013. The plaintiff issued a remedy order stating that "the dismissal made by the plaintiff on March 25, 2013 is unfair," and that "the plaintiff was paid the amount equivalent to the wages that the plaintiff could have been paid if the intervenor was reinstated to his/her original position and had worked normally during the period of dismissal," but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff's application for retrial on April 8, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] dispute.