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. On November 20, 1981, the Plaintiff had its head office in the U.S. and was established as the Korea branch office in Korea on November 20, 1981, employs 20 full time workers and sells business and other electronic parts to Samsung Group, LG Group, etc.

B. On August 9, 2010, the Intervenor was dismissed on October 31, 2015, while serving as a business employee for the Plaintiff Company on August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant primary dismissal”); and on December 29, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant primary dismissal was unfair, thereby reinstated on February 15, 2016.

C. On the 17th day of the same month, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “The Intervenor was dismissed pursuant to Article 54 subparag. 18 of the Rules of Employment, because the Intervenor had shown very poor results for the last four years, and the Plaintiff did not fully give sufficient opportunity to improve this,” and subsequently dismissed the Intervenor.

(hereinafter “the second dismissal”) D.

On February 17, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by deeming the instant secondary dismissal to be unfair, and on April 14, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant secondary dismissal was unfair, on the ground that it is difficult for the Intervenor to deem that the Intervenor did not correspond to a low-ranking person and even if he did not correspond to a low-quality person, he was making efforts to maintain employment sufficient.

E. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission also dismissed the instant secondary dismissal on the same ground as the instant secondary dismissal on August 11, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's annual sales had been increased by more than two jobs compared to the previous year since the annual sales had been conducted. The plaintiff's assertion is also compared to other business employees.