1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the cost of participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor was established on February 10, 200 and employed 15 full-time workers and engaged in the business of manufacturing dice washing machines, etc., and the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor on September 23, 2013 and served as the president of the Seoul Technology Research Institute of the Intervenor.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that it was unfair from the Intervenor as of October 25, 2013, and filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 26, 2013, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission did not deem that the Intervenor unilaterally terminated labor relations, and thus dismissed the application for remedy.

C. On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed, and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling on March 21, 2014, which was rendered by the Central Labor Relations Commission, as to dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s retirement from office does not constitute dismissal on the ground that the contract was terminated upon the termination of employment contract, the Plaintiff maintained the judgment of the Regional Labor Relations Commission of the first instance, which dismissed the application

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor removed the Plaintiff’s computer password without permission, even though there was no reason to release the Plaintiff’s computer password, and the Plaintiff was deemed to have suspended the Plaintiff’s work by declaring that the Intervenor would not have worked in the future, and does not voluntarily retire. Thus, the Intervenor’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on October 25, 2013 did not notify not only the date of dismissal conducted without justifiable grounds, but also the grounds for dismissal and the time of dismissal in writing. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s dismissal is unfair.

Therefore, the first inquiry court of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the request for remedy because it is not established as unfair dismissal, is illegal, so the first inquiry court is different.