1. On August 5, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a company that engages in the dispatch business of workers with approximately 1,00 full-time workers assigned.

The Plaintiff entered into a labor contract between the Intervenor and the Intervenor on December 30, 2013 with the term of the contract from December 30, 2013 to January 29, 2014, and when there is no big defect after evaluating the performance of duties during the trial period of one month, the Plaintiff shall enter into a regular labor contract.

B. On January 28, 2014, the Intervenor issued to the Plaintiff a pre-announcement of dismissal (hereinafter “instant notice”) stating that “the Plaintiff will dismiss the Plaintiff as of January 29, 2014 as the period of time expires for one month.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). C.

On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. On April 30, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor’s refusal to conclude this contract constitutes dismissal as it constitutes dismissal, and there is a justifiable ground for dismissal.”

On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 5, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same grounds as the aforementioned initial inquiry court.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The purport of the entire pleadings as stated in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1 and 6

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

A. The Plaintiff’s notification of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, and thus, the judgment of this case, which is different from the premise, is unlawful.

1. The notice of the instant case, unlawful in the course of the procedure, constitutes dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, as the intervenor refused to conclude this contract with the Plaintiff at the expiration of the foregoing pilot period after concluding the pilot contract with the Plaintiff for a period of one month.

Therefore, it is true.