All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are those engaged in wholesale and retail business by establishing the F jointly and using 20 full-time workers.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was enrolled in F on November 6, 2018.

1. Names of eligible persons: Duties in charge of D: November 6, 2018;

2. Since the date of entry with the thickness of the notification, we have to have a deep audit of the old and old elderly people in our country.

We have the honor to consider that it is impossible to conduct regular employment as a result of the assessment of your service during the probation period.

By the last working day of the following, the successor has been asked to conduct the transfer system to the successor, and in the future, we will be able to communicate with us with a better person.

The last working day: February 6, 2019, the plaintiffs issued a notice of the result of the settlement evaluation that the plaintiffs refused regular employment as follows to the intervenors on February 1, 2019:

(hereinafter “instant refusal of employment”). On March 11, 2019, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that “In spite of the absence of a probationary worker, the Intervenor made a formal evaluation of probationary work and notified the Plaintiffs of the refusal of the instant employment.”

On April 29, 2019, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor is a pilot, but the refusal of this case’s employment is unreasonable as there is no justifiable reason.”

On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On July 25, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiffs' application for reexamination on the same grounds as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and whether the decision on reexamination is legitimate, the intervenor’s assertion by the Plaintiffs is a training member.