1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. An intervenor is a corporation that employs approximately 15 full-time workers and operates manufacturing business of industrial machinery, etc.

On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an oral employment contract with the Intervenor and performed the operation of the team machinery.

B. On January 17, 2017, the head of the production department C of the Intervenor rendered a fluent relationship with the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff’s occupational waterway product.

The plaintiff went out of the intervenor's office, and did not attend from that time.

C. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 3, 2017, asserting that the Plaintiff was dismissed by an intervenor due to unfair dismissal.

However, on June 2, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have expressed his/her intent to dismiss the Plaintiff.”

Gyeonggi-do, 2017, 471) d.

On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On October 13, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that “the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was not constituted, and the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have expressed his/her intent to dismiss the Plaintiff.”

(Central 2017 Annexed 685, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted 1 of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor concluded an employment contract with the Intervenor without a fixed period of time.

In light of the fact that the intervenor was dismissed on March 9, 2017 and paid the Plaintiff the advance notice of dismissal allowance, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the intervenor expressed his/her intent to dismiss the Plaintiff on January 17, 2017.

Nevertheless, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.