1. On December 16, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair remedy between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor No. 2014, 873.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

가. 피고보조참가인(이하 ‘참가인’이라 한다)은 상시 35명의 근로자를 사용하여 토목건축공사업 등을 하는 회사이다.

In April 2010, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor company and worked for the Intervenor company.

B. On January 24, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the labor contract as of February 28, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (c)

On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 21, 2014, the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the instant notification does not constitute unfair dismissal, as the contract was terminated upon the termination of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor on July 21, 2014.

On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On December 16, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same grounds as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) delegated all the powers pertaining to the resignation to C, but withdrawn the delegation, and notified the managing director D of the Intervenor’s personnel management authority on February 25, 2014. Therefore, the agreement between C and the Plaintiff to withdraw as of February 28, 2014 is null and void as an unauthorized representation. (2) The Plaintiff is an employee with no fixed period of time. (3) Even if the Plaintiff is a fixed-term employee, there is a legitimate expectation right for the renewal of an employment contract. (3) The Intervenor’s rules of employment (hereinafter “Rules of Employment”).

Where a participant intends to dismiss workers in accordance with Article 32, the board of directors shall be held.