1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs not less than five full time workers and operates a sanatorium for older persons, including B, etc. under its control.

On October 14, 2013, an intervenor entered into a labor contract with B and worked as a caregiver.

B. B: (a) on January 14, 2014, five evaluation committee members were selected to conduct the Intervenor’s duty evaluation; (b) the Intervenor’s duty evaluation was deemed insufficient in performing the Intervenor’s duty evaluation.

B On April 28, 2014, five evaluation committee members were selected and conducted again on the part of the Intervenor, and the above evaluation of duties was assessed as inferior to the Intervenor’s performance of duties.

B On May 10, 2014, on the grounds that the Intervenor notified the Intervenor on May 10, 2014 that “The Intervenor’s performance of his/her duties is insufficient, but the Intervenor’s performance of his/her duties was not good.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (c)

On May 14, 2014, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, and made an application for unfair dismissal to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission with the employer B as the employer. On July 10, 2014, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor is a worker during the trial period and is a worker during the trial period and the instant notification is lawful on the grounds that there are objective and reasonable grounds for refusing the conclusion of this contract.”

On August 12, 2014, the intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on August 12, 2014, and the National Labor Relations Commission on October 24, 2014, the intervenor was not a worker during the trial period, and the National Labor Relations Commission held the disciplinary committee and provided the intervenor with an opportunity to explain in order for the intervenor to dismiss the intervenor. Therefore, the notice of this case is unfair.

on the ground that "......"