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 Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was established on August 14, 2003 and is operating a golf course (hereinafter referred to as the “instant golf course”) with approximately 21 full-time employees from 49, 630 Masung-ro, 630-ro, Masung-si, 630.

From August 24, 2014, the Plaintiff served as a sports assistant in the instant golf course operated by the Intervenor.

B. On December 6, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on September 28, 2014.”

On February 23, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's request for remedy on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and the plaintiff is not a party to the request.

C. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on May 20, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and that the Plaintiff was retired from his/her golf course to dismiss the punishment.

hereinafter referred to as "the decision of review of this case"

【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the instant golf course operation type, the Plaintiff’s work environment, etc., the Plaintiff provided labor to the intervenors for wage purposes under the subordinate employment relationship, and thus constitutes workers under the Labor Standards Act. 2) Although the Plaintiff performed his duties according to the Intervenor’s instruction, the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed without justifiable grounds and procedures.

3. Therefore, even though the intervenor's dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal, the plaintiff maintained the first trial court which rejected the plaintiff's request for unfair dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act.