1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to become a member of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) and entered into a labor contract, and agreed to the cancellation of entry and the period of three months after entry as “within one week from the date of entry into the instant company,” and “the period of three months after entry into the instant company.”

B. From January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff started working in the instant company, and arranged his work on January 26, 2018, and retired from the instant company.

C. On April 24, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant company dismissed the Plaintiff through text messages without justifiable grounds, and applied for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on June 22, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the termination of labor relations is difficult to be deemed by the Plaintiff’s unilateral intent against the Plaintiff’s will, and thus, there is no dismissal.”

Gyeonggi-do 2018. D.

On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on November 2, 2018.

(Central 2018 Sub-Appellant827, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff expressed his intention to work for a period of one month, but since the company in this case rejected it and terminated labor relations, it constitutes dismissal by the employer's unilateral intent.

Nevertheless, the instant company did not notify in writing the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal and did not have any justifiable reason, which constitutes an unfair dismissal, and thus, the instant decision of reexamination was rendered on a different premise.