1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the cost of supplementary participation.

On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Korea-U.S.C. (hereinafter “Korea-U.S.F.C”) and worked as the head of the management office of Btel located in Busan-gu (hereinafter “Btel”). The Intervenor was established on March 7, 2007 and was established on March 7, 2007 and operated a multi-family housing management business, etc. with its head office located in the center of Seoyang-gu, Busan-si. 318 and 319.

On December 2013, 2013, Han FM entered into a building management contract with the intervenor around December 2013 for Btel as the agent of Btel was suspended.

Accordingly, the intervenor decided to succeed to the employment of workers who worked in Btel, including the Plaintiff, and entered into a labor contract between the Plaintiff and November 30, 2014 with the Plaintiff from December 1, 2013 to November 30, 2014. The contract date entered the contract as December 1, 2013 retroactively.

On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the Intervenor on the grounds of business consultation and lack of working attitude (hereinafter “instant dismissal”). On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. On May 23, 2014, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission made an initial trial court citing the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the termination of labor relations between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s intention, and there is no justifiable ground for dismissal.”

On July 1, 2014, the intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 1, 2014, and the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the case was September 16, 2014.

Accordingly, the intervenor filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the above decision on review, and the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a claim by the intervenor on April 23, 2015 on the ground that it is difficult to view the dismissal of the instant case as objectively reasonable and reasonable under the Act No. 18572.