The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) is a corporation established on May 13, 2016 and engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale business of electric sets and wholesale business using five full-time workers.

On April 25, 2016, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) served as a person responsible for product production and financial personnel management.

On January 11, 2018, the representative director of A made an individual interview with the intervenor, and the intervenor did not work for A from February 1, 2018.

On March 19, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “A unfairly dismissed the Intervenor on January 31, 2018,” and the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on July 27, 2018 on the ground that “the Intervenor is recognized as qualified to apply for remedy to an employee under the Labor Standards Act, but the labor relationship of A and the Intervenor cannot be deemed terminated by the Intervenor’s unilateral intent against the Intervenor’s will.”

On September 6, 2018, the intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on September 6, 2018, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry tribunal and accepted the application for remedy of the intervenor on the ground that “the intervenor recognized the eligibility to be a party to the application for remedy as an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the labor relationship of the A and the intervenor constitutes dismissal due to termination of the unilateral intention of A

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). On the other hand, A was declared bankrupt on July 26, 2019 (Seoul District Court 2019Hau1016), and on the same day, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, and 11, and the purport of the entire pleading of this case is legitimate, the plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling of this case was established A along with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E") as promoters, and acquired 30% of the total number of shares issued by Gap, and was appointed as directors of Gap, and managed Gap's duties

Therefore, the intervenor.