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 company that ordinarily employs approximately 14 workers and engages in civil and construction work business.

B. On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the vice president C of the Intervenor set the contract term from December 10, 2014 to December 10, 2015, and prepared a written employment contract between the Plaintiff and the vice president C of the Intervenor with the content that the Plaintiff works as the field director of the Intervenor.

The above contract of employment was prepared in the name of the representative director D and the plaintiff of the intervenor, and the official seal of D's representative director is affixed thereto.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant employment contract”) with respect to the employment contract under the said employment contract.

On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff lost the insured status of the employment insurance as an employee of Jin Chang-gu Co., Ltd., who had previously worked on December 5, 2014, and acquired the insured status as an employee of the Intervenor on December 20, 2014.

On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff received notification from the President of the National Health Insurance Corporation from the Plaintiff on March 14, 2016, on the part of the Intervenor’s notification from January 1, 2016 that the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff’s eligibility as an employment provided policyholder and the Plaintiff’s health insurance eligibility was changed to the self-employed insured.

E. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed on March 23, 2016, and filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 10, 2016, but the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any benefit of remedy on August 22, 2016.

F. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission, on December 21, 2016, deemed that there was no remedy interest on the ground that “the instant labor contract was established between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, but it cannot be deemed that the instant labor contract was renewed, and thus, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated on December 10, 2015.”