1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor was established on May 26, 1976 and was employed by 101 full-time workers on a taxi transport business, and completed the registration of dissolution for the liquidation of the legal entity on November 4, 2013, and was closed on December 10, 2014, and the Plaintiff was enrolled in the Intervenor on April 10, 199 and served as a taxi engineer.

B. On December 7, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that a dismissal made against the Plaintiff on December 9, 2013 on the ground of the Intervenor’s progress of liquidation procedures following business deterioration, and filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on December 9, 2013, but the Elementary District Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application on February 4, 2014, on the ground that “the number of the Intervenor’s regular workers during the one-month period before the date of dismissal is less than five, does not fall under a workplace subject to Article 28 of the Labor Standards

C. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the said initial trial tribunal with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission maintained the determination of the Regional Labor Relations Commission of the first instance which dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s dismissal does not constitute a workplace subject to Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act with less than five regular workers for one month prior to the date of the Plaintiff’s dismissal, and even if there are not less than five regular workers, the Intervenor was ordinarily engaged in the process of closing and clearing the enterprise with a true intent due to continuous business deterioration and, even if there are justifiable grounds for dismissal.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not have deteriorated the financial status, such as the Plaintiff’s sales price of the vehicle from 1999 to 201, 2050,000 won for vehicle sales, 1.26 million won for loans, and 3.3 million won for vehicle transport each month.