1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On October 7, 2011, the Plaintiff is a legal entity that runs a F Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”) with approximately 65 full-time employees, established for the purpose of establishing and operating a medical institution.

B. The Intervenor Intervenor C (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) joined the instant hospital on November 1, 2017, with the head of the administrative office on November 1, 2017, the Intervenor D as the chief of the review division on January 1, 2018, and the Intervenor B as the chief of the original division on January 1, 2018.

C. On July 19, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor on April 23, 2018.”

On October 2, 2018, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s order to work at work is merely a means to respond to the Intervenor’s request for remedy, and there exists interest in the Intervenor’s request for remedy, and the Plaintiff’s termination of the labor contract with the Intervenor constitutes dismissal, on the ground that it does not give written notice of the grounds for dismissal and the timing of dismissal.” In addition, the Plaintiff ordered the Intervenor to pay the Intervenor KRW 13,959,213, and KRW 23,191,794, and KRW 26,685,477 to the Intervenor D, instead of the original reinstatement.

On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On January 31, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s above request for reexamination on the same grounds as the first inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was known to the Labor Relations Commission that the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission and notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor would normally participate in the work.

The intervenors have presented such terms and conditions as to their return to work.