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 was established on September 1, 1995 and employed approximately thirty full-time workers and engaged in the manufacturing business of automobile parts. The Plaintiff was employed as an employee in the production service upon joining the Intervenor company around July 3, 2017.

B. On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor drafted a labor contract that entered into between July 3, 2017 and December 25, 2017 (hereinafter “instant labor contract”).

C. On January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (2018da42) on the ground that the Intervenor was dismissed without any ground or procedure of dismissal, and on March 12, 2018, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “instant early trial tribunal”) filed an application for remedy with the Plaintiff on the ground that the Intervenor did not give written notice required by the Labor Standards Act when the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff, and thus, the dismissal of the Plaintiff on October 27, 2017 was unfair (hereinafter referred to as “instant initial trial tribunal”).

On April 17, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking revocation of the decision made by the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) on April 17, 2018. On June 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry tribunal of the instant case and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal (hereinafter “instant application for remedy”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff had already been requested for remedy due to the expiration of the term of the labor contract at the time of the application for remedy,” and the National Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal (hereinafter “instant application for remedy”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is forged in the instant employment contract, and the Plaintiff’s father, mother, and senior mother, who were employed as well as the Plaintiff’s employment conditions, such as the contract term under the employment contract, at the time of joining the Intervenor company.