1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On September 30, 2003, the intervenor registered the business and opened a place of business D in Sin Sin Sin Sin Sinsi. The intervenor employed eight full-time workers in the above place of business to run a walst manufacturing business.

On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff joined C and served in the production team.

B. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Intervenor was unfairly dismissed on February 17, 2017,” and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter “instant application for remedy”). On June 30, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s instant application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s employment relationship is not terminated due to the Intervenor’s dismissal.”

(K) Gyeonggi 2017, 613, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case").

On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the first inquiry tribunal of the instant case and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, on September 27, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case.

(Central 2017 Annexed 764, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. On February 17, 2017, the head of the production department of the Plaintiff’s assertion C made a verbal notification of dismissal to the Plaintiff as the Intervenor who is the employer.

The decision of the retrial of this case, which dismissed the plaintiff's request for review without recognizing it, was unlawful even though the intervenor was dismissed.

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

C. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff did not continue to work at C’s workplace after leaving the workplace. On February 20, 2017, the Intervenor’s spouse and C in charge of accounting and material management were made phone calls with E and the Intervenor’s spouse in charge of material management, and the main text thereof.

The recording contents shall be as follows:

H. H. H.D.