1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2.

An intervenor is a company that employs about 10 full-time workers and engages in the construction business. On October 24, 2013, the plaintiff was employed by the intervenor and has served at the C training place facility construction site performed by the intervenor.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she was subject to unfair dismissal from the Intervenor on November 5, 2013, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission under the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. On January 21, 2014, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor was ordered to return to the Plaintiff five times from November 2013 to December 2013, 2014, but the Intervenor did not comply with the order, so the Plaintiff did not have any interest in the Plaintiff’s application for remedy.”

On February 7, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as Central 2014da134 on February 7, 2014, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any interest in the application for reexamination, as in the first instance judgment on May 14,

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination.” The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff’s president D, who asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion were unfair as a dismissal made in violation of the procedure under the Labor Standards Act, without any justifiable reason, at the construction site C on November 5, 2013.

However, although the plaintiff issued an order of reinstatement to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, the intervenor not only issued the order of reinstatement on the premise that the plaintiff is employed only but also issued the order of reinstatement to the intervenor's head office in the female city, which is not C, which is the former place of employment before dismissal, and therefore the order of reinstatement to the intervenor has no effect unfairly.