1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The intervenor in the process of the decision on reexamination (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) concluded an entrustment contract with the Danam Housing Comprehensive Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Danam Housing”) and entrusted the management of the instant apartment to the Danam Housing (hereinafter referred to as the “instant entrustment contract”).

On September 1, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract between Chungcheong Housing and the Intervenor from September 1, 2004 to the expiration date of the entrustment contract of this case, and worked as the Director of the Management Office of the apartment of this case from that time.

The Intervenor demanded the replacement of the Director of the Management Office on September 5, 2013 and September 30, 2013 on the ground of the incombustibility between the Plaintiff and the residents, but the Chungcheong Housing was rejected, and the said consignment contract was terminated as of February 20, 2014.

On March 29, 2014, when converting the management form of the apartment of this case from the consignment management to the autonomous management, the intervenor appointed C as the managing director of the apartment of this case, and succeeded to all workers belonging to the previous management office other than the plaintiff. On April 8, 2014, the intervenor accepted the report on the change in the management method of the apartment of this case on the management method of the apartment of this case.

On April 9, 2014, the above C changed the management form of the apartment of this case to autonomous management, and the duties of the Director of the Management Office of the Chungcheongnam-nam Housing have been completed.

4. From 10. to 10. Ethical notice was made to the end of attendance.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on April 9, 2014 from the Intervenor, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Danam Labor Relations Commission”), but the Chungcheong Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor cannot be seen as the Plaintiff’s employer.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on September 29, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant decision on review”).