1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including those resulting from the participation, shall be all included.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is a corporation that employs approximately 250 full-time workers and operates the temporary placement business, etc. of workers. The Plaintiffs are those who are in charge of their packaging work in the D logistics warehouse located in Permitted-si where the Intervenor is dispatched workers after entering the Intervenor on October 26, 2015.

B. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs were absent from office, and were issued a verbal warning from E on November 1, 2015, the following day by the Intervenor’s on-site director.

At around 15:00 on November 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs sent text messages to F, a manager at night duty, who was absent from work. However, F, without confirming text messages, attempted to contact the Plaintiffs and did not contact with the Plaintiffs.

C. On December 1, 2015, E told the Plaintiffs who worked at the work on December 1, 2015 that “if in this way, it would be difficult to bring our company ditches in the future.” On the same day, E was submitted two copies of resignations in each of the Plaintiffs’ names.

(hereinafter “Termination of the instant employment relationship”). D.

The Plaintiffs asserted that the termination of the instant labor relationship is unfair, and applied for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 6, 2016.

On March 2, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss an application filed by the Plaintiffs for remedy on the grounds that the termination of the instant employment relationship was based on the unity between the Plaintiffs and the intervenors, and that it was not by dismissal, even if the Plaintiffs were to have determined the intention of resignation or that there was no intention of resignation due to the fact that there was no intention of resignation.

E. On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission by Ministry Ordinance No. 2015Da372, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal on June 16, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground for recognition] does not dispute, A.