1. The case where the National Labor Relations Commission applied for the reexamination of the unfair dismissal remedy in question on December 20, 2017.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 200 full-time workers and runs the business of maintaining and managing business facilities.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff from June 1, 201, from around June 1, 201, from around June 11, 2001, from around D, from around July 1, 2008, and from around July 1, 2008, E-Japanese Road (hereinafter “E”) which is an express speed between Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the Pakistan-si and was performing cleaning services.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant workers” in the case of the Intervenor, C, and D together with the Plaintiff.

Around July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and the instant workers concluded each employment contract (the same content of each of the instant primary employment contracts entered into between the Plaintiff and the instant workers; hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant primary employment contracts”) under which they are to take charge of cleaning services in E by setting the period from July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and concluded each employment contract under which they are to take charge of the same duties as the previous one (the same content of each of the instant secondary employment contracts entered into between the Plaintiff and the instant workers; hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant secondary employment contracts”) by setting the period from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017.

C. On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff issued to the instant workers a notice to the effect that each of the instant secondary labor contracts was terminated on June 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

On July 14, 2017, the instant workers asserted that the Plaintiff as the respondent constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On September 1, 2017, the instant workers asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, and subsequently, on September 1, 2017, they constituted “F” (hereinafter “F”) and “the instant workers of Goyang-si” and “F and Goyang-si added F and Goyang-si as the respondent.

On September 18, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission had the right to renew the instant notification to the instant workers.