1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The circumstances leading up to the decision of reexamination are companies established on May 28, 2010 and engaged in waste treatment and recycling business, and manufacturing and selling fire saws, and the Defendant joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was dismissed on September 1, 2013, while serving as management directors in the Plaintiff company on September 1, 2013, and was subject to unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff as of July 14, 2017, and was not paid business suspension allowances and wages, and was claimed as damages due to the violation of working conditions.

On August 1, 2017, the Intervenor filed a claim for remedy for unfair dismissal and damages due to violation of the terms and conditions of employment with the Gyeongbuk District Labor Relations Commission (JJB), which dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on September 22, 2017, on the ground that “the Intervenor is not deemed an employee, and the suspension of business, allowance, and unpaid wages, etc. do not constitute grounds for claiming compensation for damages due to the violation of the terms and conditions of employment.”

On October 22, 2017, the Intervenor appealed in the said initial inquiry court, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission under the Central 2017 Before December 15, 2017, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court and rendered a decision dismissing the remainder of the Intervenor’s request for reexamination on December 15, 2017, deeming that “the Intervenor is deemed an employee, and the aforementioned dismissal constitutes unfair dismissal” on December 15, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). On January 16, 2018, the Plaintiff received the instant written decision on reexamination.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial ruling of this case as a whole is an investor who entered into a stock transfer contract with the Plaintiff on August 28, 2013 and invested KRW 150 million (capital 5 million) in the Plaintiff on the grounds that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The Plaintiff’s waste treatment and recycling is subject to the purchase of shares.