1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff was established on January 6, 1997, and employs approximately thirty full-time workers to operate the telecommunication business, etc. Around November 1, 201, the Intervenor was employed by the Plaintiff and was in charge of the supervision of electric power systems, solar activities, overseas technology frequency consultation, etc. as the managing director of the strategic business division. The labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor terminated on October 2, 201.

B. On December 24, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff was dismissed without justifiable cause, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 17, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for remedy.

C. On March 24, 2015, the Intervenor dissatisfied with the above determination, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on March 24, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission, on May 20, 2015, determined that “the Intervenor was dismissed against his/her will not consent to the Plaintiff’s recommendation to resign, and that the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed because the Plaintiff did not disclose the grounds for dismissal and did not give written notification, and thus, the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Intervenor is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, considering the following: (a) the Plaintiff was employed in implementing solar energy projects as a new project; (b) the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to administer the pertinent business; and (c) the Plaintiff did not receive direction or supervision in the regular position; (d) the Plaintiff’s representative director was paid a high-amount annual salary similar to the Plaintiff’s representative director; and (e) the Plaintiff was employed after the retirement age under