1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

On October 10, 2012, the Plaintiff was established on October 10, 2012 and employs 50 full-time workers in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, with the main office of 50 workers, and is engaged in software, online games, mobile game sales and service business (hereinafter “Plaintiff company”), and 23 workers including the Defendant’s Intervenors (hereinafter “participatings”), including 23 workers (hereinafter “instant workers”), were dismissed on May 14, 2015 while serving as the Plaintiff company.

The instant workers asserted that dismissal made by the Plaintiff Company as of May 14, 2015 was unfair, and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 22, 2015, and on September 7, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to the effect that the dismissal of the instant workers on May 14, 2015, which was made by the Plaintiff Company to the instant workers on the ground that there was procedural defect in the dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff Company did not notify the Plaintiff Company of the reason and time in writing in the dismissal of the instant workers, and that the dismissal of the instant workers was unfair, and that the Plaintiff Company would provide the instant workers with monetary compensation in lieu of their reinstatement.

(hereinafter “First Inquiry Tribunal”). On October 12, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the first Inquiry Tribunal, filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the first Inquiry Tribunal with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 12, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on February 24, 2016 on the ground that there is a serious procedural defect in dismissal.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination.” On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff served the written decision on reexamination, and filed the instant lawsuit on March 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11 (including branch numbers, if a branch number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the ruling of the reexamination of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's assertion was legitimate, and that the plaintiff transferred the worker of this case to another company on April 14, 2015, as the plaintiff would have to close the Seoul Office to 5.24.