1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company employs 100 workers to engage in multi-family housing management, security business, etc., and is in charge of the security services of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B lending (hereinafter “instant lending”).

B. On June 1, 2014, the Intervenor joined the Plaintiff Company and served as security guards of the instant lending.

C. On December 19, 2014, occupants of the instant loan held a meeting at the neighbor’s meeting to reduce one of three security guards on the ground of the increase in management expenses due to the increase in the cost of expenditure at the neighbor’s meeting, and then requested the Plaintiff company to reduce the cost of security guards.

Plaintiff

On January 13, 2015, the Company notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor will terminate the service by January 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant notification”) on the ground that the Intervenor decided to reduce one worker for the purpose of reducing management expenses as a result of the instant meeting of the occupants of the loan of this case (hereinafter “instant notification”).

E. The Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal. On March 24, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that the instant notification by the Plaintiff Company constitutes dismissal, and that the dismissal did not have justifiable grounds.

F. The Plaintiff Company appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on June 29, 2015 on the same ground as the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The 1st tenant of the Plaintiff Company claimed that the Plaintiff Company applied the minimum wage of surveillance workers at 100%, resulting in an increase in management expenses, the security guards were determined and requested to reduce the security guards to the Plaintiff Company.