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.

On July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) company and served as a driving engineer until May 22, 2017. The Intervenor is a company established on August 31, 1979 and employs ten full-time workers and operates a taxi transport business.

On May 22, 2017, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff as disciplinary reasons such as “unpaid payment of transportation revenue, arbitrarily repair of vehicles, and exchange of typists.”

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary dismissal.” On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disciplinary dismissal was unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) pursuant to Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission). On August 31, 2017, the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy by deeming that “the grounds for disciplinary action are recognized and the dismissal is also justifiable.”

On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission as the Central 2017 No. 1006, but the National Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal on December 6, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff was served with the written decision on reexamination.

[Ground of recognition] There was no dispute, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire argument as to whether the decision on the reexamination of this case was lawful, and such practices were committed as paying transportation revenues in an irregular manner in the intervenor company asserting the legitimacy of the decision on the reexamination of this case, and offsetting the proceeds and transportation revenues after the driver repaired the vehicle.

The Plaintiff did not pay transport earnings due to the work performed according to such practices, and even if the Plaintiff was partially unpaid, the amount is merely KRW 1,522,818, which is merely a mere 1,522,818, which is not yet settled.

On the other hand, the labor-management agreement which the intervenor is based on the disciplinary dismissal of the instant case is not concluded with the labor union to which the plaintiff belongs, but has gone through the simplification of bargaining windows at the time.