1. On October 8, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for review of unfair dismissal C between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff ordinarily employs 30 or more workers to operate a set (hereinafter “instant set”) with a cooperative engaging in livestock product sales business, etc.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) moved to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2015 on September 1, 1998 and took overall charge of credit business and the instant marina operation as the head of the AF branch, a branch office, while working for the EM on September 1, 1998. On September 5, 2016, the head of the credit division at the head office was transferred to the Plaintiff.

B. On August 2, 2017, the Intervenor presented to the Plaintiff a resignation notice on December 31, 2017. On October 24, 2017, the Intervenor submitted to the Plaintiff a written withdrawal notice regarding the said resignation notice.

However, as of December 31, 2017, the Plaintiff terminated the employment relationship by treating the Intervenor as a member of the Council.

C. On March 30, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, but the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on May 30, 2018 on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated upon the submission and repair of private staff.”

(F) d.

On July 11, 2018, the Intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 11, 2018, and the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on October 8, 2018 on the ground that “The Plaintiff did not have expressed his/her consent to the resignation submitted by the Intervenor, and thus withdrawal of the private staff submitted by the Intervenor to the Plaintiff on October 24, 2017 is valid. Therefore, even if withdrawal is made, the Plaintiff’s arbitrary acceptance of the resignation and termination of the labor relationship constitutes dismissal, and it constitutes unfair dismissal in violation of the duty of written notification.”

(C) [Ground for recognition] / [Ground for recognition] / Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion.