1. The case where the National Labor Relations Commission applied for a new trial on May 9, 2018 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant for the remedy against unfair dismissal.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. Plaintiff A is an administrative agency of Plaintiff B that deals with diplomatic and consular affairs, etc. on behalf of Plaintiff B in the Republic of Korea.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a person employed by the Plaintiff on August 1, 2015 and worked as a public relations officer (hereinafter referred to as “public relations officer”) at the E Embassy (hereinafter referred to as “instant mission”).

B. On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff A notified the Intervenor that his employment relationship was terminated as of July 31, 2017.

C. On September 27, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff’s institution as the respondent was “A was unfairly dismissed on July 31, 2017,” and filed an application for unfair dismissal relief with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. The Intervenor added Plaintiff B as the respondent on January 25, 2018, where the procedure was in progress.

On February 8, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission(A) received the Intervenor’s request on the ground that the Intervenor’s request for remedy against B(A) is the Intervenor’s employer, and the Intervenor is qualified as the respondent of the above request for remedy. There is a renewed claim against the Intervenor’s labor contract with B(A). However, the Intervenor’s refusal to renew the contract upon the notice of termination of the above labor relationship is not recognized as reasonable and unfair dismissal.”

On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for review seeking revocation of the said initial inquiry tribunal with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On May 9, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the plaintiffs' request for reexamination on the ground that "the addition of the intervenor to the plaintiff B as the respondent for the request for remedy shall not be deemed to have been subject to the time limit for request for remedy in light of the purport of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act as selective addition."

It is also up to the first inquiry court maintained by this.