1. On May 9, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was established on June 2, 1998 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling and designing electric distribution teams, etc. and electric construction business, etc., and had its head office in the articles of incorporation of the Busan-gun, the Busan-gun, and operated the development, manufacturing and selling business, etc. of electronic devices, etc. using approximately 19 full-time workers.

B. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to revocation of employment on July 23, 2015, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was employed by the Intervenor Company and was employed under B team’s control due to the omission of career experience in the curriculum vitae.

(hereinafter “Revocation of Employment”) D. D.

On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the revocation of employment of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal. However, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on December 15, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff failed to correct the application despite having requested the Plaintiff to submit and correct the reasons for the application at least twice.”

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on May 9, 2016 for the following reasons.

(2) Article 60(1)2 of the Rules of the Labor Relations Commission provides that “Where a correction has not been made on at least two occasions, the request for correction has not been made,” which constitutes grounds for rejection.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was sent to the Plaintiff twice a written order of correction requesting the correction of the reasoning. The written order of correction was returned on March 15, 2016, and the written order of correction was issued on March 28, 2016, along with the written order of correction issued on March 15, 2016.