1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. An intervenor is a company established around October 24, 1995 and engaged in food manufacturing and selling business, etc.

On September 2014, the Plaintiff began to serve as a participant and became a member of the Intervenor.

B. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that it was unfair for the Intervenor to dismiss the Intervenor on the ground that the Intervenor was dismissed on the ground that he/she was unable to enter into a contract any longer because he/she has much ability to provide management services for three months, and filed an application for remedy for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “application for remedy for unfair dismissal”).

On December 31, 2014, the Intervenor sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “as a result of reviewing the case of the above-mentioned petition for remedy, the Intervenor shall notify the Plaintiff of the reinstatement to the original position at 08:30 copies on January 2, 2015,” and the Plaintiff received this.

On the other hand, on May 11, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling of reexamination to the effect that “the plaintiff is dismissed as he/she is reinstated according to the order of reinstatement of the intervenor” (a ruling dismissing the plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the first inquiry tribunal of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that rejected the said request for remedy on the same ground).

C. Upon receipt of the Intervenor’s above notice of reinstatement (hereinafter “instant order of reinstatement”), the Plaintiff appeared at the Intervenor’s workplace on January 5, 2015.

However, on January 7, 2015, the Plaintiff sent a letter verifying the content that “the Plaintiff raised an objection to having the Intervenor work and forced him/her to work on a gambling package that does not fit for the return to work, and cause the Intervenor to hold an interview with the Chairperson,” and did not work at the Intervenor’s workplace from the same day.

Accordingly, on January 22, 2015, the Intervenor sent a content-certified mail to the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff is absent from work without permission from January 7, 2015, and that “the Plaintiff will immediately return to work,” and the Plaintiff received it.

After that, the intervenor did not continue to work for the plaintiff on 2015.