Text
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.
Reasons
1. Details of the decision on retrial;
A. The Plaintiff is one of the 123 branch churches belonging to the Incorporated Foundation C (hereinafter “instant Incorporated Foundation”), and operates a sanatorium for older persons with approximately 48 full-time employees by establishing the D Care Center (hereinafter “instant Medical Care Center”). The Intervenor joined the instant Medical Care Center on October 19, 2016 and worked as the chief of the general affairs division.
B. On February 16, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that “the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on January 16, 2017,” and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “instant application for remedy”), and on March 21, 2017, the Intervenor additionally filed an application for remedy with the Plaintiff and the instant incorporated foundation as an employer.
On April 12, 2017, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy of the instant case on the ground that “the Plaintiff is the Intervenor’s employer, and the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was duly terminated due to the implied agreement between the Parties.”
(No. 2017 Section 12, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case").
On April 28, 2017, the Intervenor appealed to the instant initial inquiry court, and applied for remedy against unfair dismissal as of April 28, 2017 by the Central Labor Relations Commission No. 2017 and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the instant initial inquiry court on July 17, 2017 on the ground that “if the Plaintiff only ends the employment relationship with the grounds for dismissal in the Intervenor’s previous workplace before the end of the training period, it constitutes unfair dismissal,” and “the dismissal made by the Plaintiff on January 16, 2017 is unfair. Therefore, the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff could have received if the Intervenor was to be reinstated from office and ordinarily worked during the dismissal period, and the Plaintiff’s remaining request for remedy against the Intervenor’s incorporated foundation and the instant medical care center shall be dismissed” (hereinafter referred to as “instant initial adjudication”).