1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. Besais established on December 18, 1998, has its head office in 38-gil 37 (Yinsan-dong 5 A), Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with approximately 7,500 full-time workers, and runs a call center counseling and other business.

B. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Vietnam and provided telephone counseling services as a counselor. On February 13, 2017, Vietnam issued a notice of refusal of employment (hereinafter “instant notice of refusal of employment”) to the Plaintiff on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) “In the course of performing his/her duties, he/she prepared a statement of time several times; (c) failed to comply with business instructions, such as poor performance in the course of performing his/her duties; and (d) no improvement has been made; (b) thus, the Plaintiff refused employment as part of February 13, 2017, when the period of probation expires; and (c) the contract is terminated.”

C. On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the notice of refusal of this case’s main employment constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission Decision 2017Dano374. However, on April 13, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on the ground that “the Plaintiff is a trial worker, and the refusal of the employment of the Plaintiff, who is a trial worker, is deemed disqualified, constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right of revocation reserved against Vietnam.”

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the judgment of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for reexamination on May 11, 2017 with the Central Labor Relations Commission Decision 2017Da445, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed on July 18, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision for reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1-1, Gap evidence No. 3, 4, Eul evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s notice of refusal of this case’s assertion constitutes an unfair dismissal for the following reasons, but the National Labor Relations Commission differs from this.