1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a corporation that was established on December 17, 2015 and ordinarily employs seven workers, and operates an engine boarding business.

On August 20, 2016, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) made an oral employment contract with the Plaintiff Company without a fixed period of time, and began to work as a parking management and inspection agent. On August 20, 2017, the Intervenor drafted a labor contract with the term of the employment contract “from August 1, 2017 to August 1, 2018” (Evidence 2). (b) On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff Company issued a written notice of dismissal stating the date of dismissal as “the date of dismissal” as “the date of November 26, 2017,” and the grounds for dismissal as “the ability to perform duties is inappropriate to us” and issued to each Intervenor.

(hereinafter “instant dismissal”) (No. 1) (A.C.).

On February 1, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant dismissal was unfair (JL 2018da247), and on March 29, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling as stated in the following table on the ground that “the instant dismissal is unfair because the grounds for dismissal are not justified, and there exists a defect in the written notification of dismissal,” thereby citing the Intervenor’s application for remedy.

(1) The dismissal of the Plaintiff Company made on November 26, 2017 by the Intervenor on November 26, 2017 is unfair. 2. The Plaintiff Company is entitled to the amount of wages that the Intervenor could have received if the Intervenor was reinstated within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written adjudication, and the Plaintiff Company would pay the amount equivalent to the wages that the Intervenor could have received if the Intervenor had worked normally during the dismissal period.

Plaintiff

On May 8, 2018, the company dissatisfied with the initial inquiry court of this case, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2018da478), but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case on July 9, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”) (No. 2). The written decision on the instant decision on reexamination shall be made to the Plaintiff Company on July 30, 2018.