1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs an economic business, credit business, etc. using 130 full-time workers, and the intervenors are the workers who joined the Plaintiff company and have worked for the Plaintiff company.

B. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor for managerial reasons.

(hereinafter “instant layoff”) C.

On December 26, 2013, the Intervenor claimed that the instant layoff constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 20, 2014, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not make full efforts to avoid dismissal, did not select a person subject to dismissal according to fair and reasonable standards, and did not faithfully consult with the labor representative, thereby the instant layoff constitutes unfair dismissal.”

On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal on May 19, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The parties’ assertion 1) Imminent administrative necessity (a) urgent administrative necessity (a.e., (b) the Plaintiff was faced with the crisis of fisheries due to the decrease in fishery output, etc., and the Plaintiff was faced with the loss of KRW 70.4 billion in the year 2007; (b) the Plaintiff closed the Dong branch in 201 and closed the Nampodong branch in 2013, but its management is not improved; and (c) the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives to implement business normalization with the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives and received approximately KRW 37 billion in the amount of the above subsidies, but the existence of the Plaintiff itself was unclear.