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.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On November 30, 2012, an intervenor was established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of fire-fighting equipment and materials materials, and has its head office in Gwangju City City, thereby running the above business with nine full-time workers.

According to the withholding receipt and employment insurance status of wage and salary income, the Plaintiff worked for the Intervenor company from August 1, 2015.

B. On August 31, 2017, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the following matters by content-certified mail.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”) 1. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor - The items proposed by the Plaintiff using the Intervenor’s sales network and business capabilities based on multi-year distribution experience, and the Plaintiff was affiliated with the Intervenor and the Intervenor was not related to the partner.

(b)

2. 1) In the case of valves for the prevention of excessive pressure, the Intervenor selected and proceeds from the sale of the second product proposed by the Plaintiff as an effective issue, and the product was in charge of the business of licensing and purchasing. (b)

3. Terms and Conditions 1) of work within the organization and status - Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff not only participated in the Intervenor’s overall management with the former position, but also has been discriminated against not only with the subsidization of expenses, such as the vehicle and the corporate card, but also with the latter. 2) In the case of benefits, considering the Plaintiff’s age and the necessity of employment in light of the social common sense, the position of the former position may be deemed as the honorary income bracket, and the benefits are not the amount set by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s proportion.

In addition, it is obvious that the patent holder (the spouse D of the plaintiff) and the plaintiff's dissatisfyed against the plaintiff's request, and the plaintiff's dissatisfy expressed it as the plaintiff's improper address.

I would like to do.

3 Sub-determination - The Intervenor does not have a provision for selective service.