1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The circumstances leading up to the decision of the instant case and the intervenor entering into a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are companies established on July 22, 201 and engaging in construction business by employing 60 full-time workers.

On August 23, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded an employment contract with the Intervenor and the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building Construction Work (hereinafter “instant Construction Work”) to work as a type mold from the 24th day of the same month to the completion day of the instant Construction Work, and worked as a type mold number from August 24, 2015 to the construction site of this case.

On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the second day of the same month, alleging that the Plaintiff had been dismissed by an intervenor.

On October 30, 2015, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated by dismissal, and this dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal in violation of the written notification obligation.”

In response to the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal by the Central Labor Relations Commission, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On March 4, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the said initial inquiry tribunal and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor cannot be deemed terminated by dismissal.”

(hereinafter “the instant decision on review”). The instant construction was completed on April 2016, and the Intervenor completed the construction at the construction site at the time of the completion. Accordingly, the Intervenor completed the construction at the construction site at the time of the completion.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, Eul evidence No. 4-1, and the purport of Gap's testimony and pleading as a whole is that the plaintiff entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time with the intervenor in the preparatory document dated November 16, 2016, but since the plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.