1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Details of the Review Decision

A. An intervenor is a corporation that employs ten full-time workers and engages in construction business. On October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff joined a participant and served as a field manager at C construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B. On December 20, 2013, the Intervenor reported the Plaintiff’s deprivation of insurance qualification as of December 6, 2013.

C. On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that “the Intervenor was subject to unfair dismissal from the Intervenor on December 7, 2013.” The Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor was not dismissed, but the Plaintiff was deemed to voluntarily retired.”

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination on May 16, 2014 on the ground that “it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor unilaterally terminated the labor relationship against the Plaintiff’s will.”

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, was made on December 6, 2013 by the Plaintiff, while working at the instant construction site on December 6, 2013, that the Intervenor D, an employee of the Intervenor, retired from office for the Plaintiff, and did not voluntarily resign.

This constitutes an dismissal made without justifiable reasons, and it should be regarded as unfair dismissal because the reason and time of the dismissal did not be given a written notice.

Therefore, the decision on review of this case, which was made on different premise, is unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Form of relevant statutes.

Facts of recognition

On December 6, 2013, while working as the site manager at the construction site of this case, the Plaintiff, who was an employee of the Intervenor, went away from the construction site of this case.

Without permission from the site;