1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of appeal.

In the first instance court, the plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant as stated in the purport of the claim, and the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed against the part against the Plaintiff regarding the Intervenor among the judgment of the first instance. As such, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for revocation of the part concerning the Intervenor in the judgment of retrial rendered by the National Labor Relations Commission on the case of petition for retrial against D unfair dismissal (hereinafter “the judgment of this case”).

2. Grounds for the decision on the retrial of this case

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that is operated as a branch of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and is running a metropolitan bus transport business with approximately 110 full-time workers after completing the registration of incorporation of the legal entity on March 22, 2017.

The intervenor joined E on January 6, 2017 and served as a bus driver, and the plaintiff was established and served as a bus driver.

B. On February 8, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that he was dismissed from office (hereinafter “instant notice of dismissal”).

(c)

The Intervenor asserted that the instant notice of dismissal was unfair and applied for remedy to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On April 8, 2019, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission should be deemed to have cancelled or withdrawn the notice of dismissal of this case since the Plaintiff requested the Intervenor to reverse his/her intention of refusal of re-contract and return to the original state.

“The” dismissed the request for remedy by denying the interests of the request for remedy.

(d)

Accordingly, the intervenor appealed and applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission.

On July 22, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the labor relationship based on the continued refusal of labor by the participant, but it cannot be seen as the voluntary withdrawal intention. Therefore, the reason for dismissal is recognized as justifiable, but there is a serious procedural defect that has not gone through the resolution of the personnel committee.