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 was established on July 10, 1997 and employs 28 full-time workers to engage in the program and software development business, and C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) is a company established on August 18, 2003 and operates the software development service business by employing 10 full-time workers.

B. On June 1, 2013, the Intervenor was dismissed on the 28th day of the same month while he/she was employed by the Plaintiff and was in charge of design work and business of securing customers in the strategic planning office.

C. On September 27, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Plaintiff and C with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On November 19, 2013, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor’s employer was the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff dismissed the Intervenor, and the dismissal was illegal in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act.

On December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission maintained the initial inquiry court on February 20, 2014 and dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the judgment by the Regional Labor Relations Commission of the first instance.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The initial inquiry tribunal of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, which cited a request for remedy on the ground that the plaintiff's assertion is unfair, is unlawful for the following reasons. Thus, the initial inquiry tribunal of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, which judged otherwise to be justifiable, is unlawful.

1) The Respondent’s disqualified employer is not the Plaintiff but C. 2) Even if the Intervenor’s employer did not dismiss the Plaintiff, the Intervenor is an employee during the training period and the Plaintiff exercised the right of cancellation reserved against the employer as it is merely an employee during the training period.