1. On September 4, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ordinarily employs approximately eight workers and engages in household distribution business, etc., and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a person who joined the Plaintiff from September 11, 2017 to works as the head of the headquarters.

B. The Intervenor asserted that “the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed on December 20, 2017 by the Intervenor,” and applied for remedy against unfair dismissal to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant application for remedy”). (c)

On May 14, 2018, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “In contrast to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Intervenor voluntarily retired, the Plaintiff unilaterally dismissed the Plaintiff from employment against the Intervenor’s will and thus constitutes unfair dismissal as the Plaintiff violated the Intervenor’s duty of written notification of dismissal.”

Seoul 2017 Daz. 699, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case") d.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal of this case and applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on September 4, 2018 on the same ground as the first inquiry court of this case.

(Central 2018da710, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision for reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. 1) Party’s assertion 1) It is merely merely a voluntary withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff did not unilaterally dismiss the Intervenor from employment against the intent of the Intervenor. Therefore, the instant decision on reexamination that the Plaintiff unfairly dismissed the Intervenor is unlawful. 2) In full view of the dialogue between the Defendant and the Intervenor, the representative of the Plaintiff, C and the Intervenor, the contents of D message, and all other circumstances at the time, etc., comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) In-house director C, the representative of the Plaintiff, was on December 8, 2017;

9. A few occasions, including the 19th day of the same month.