1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The participants are corporations established for the purpose of contributing to the promotion of social welfare by conducting projects, such as the establishment and operation of medical welfare facilities for the aged, and their affiliates have C Care Workers and D Care Workers.

On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff was appointed as the president of the C Care Center.

B. On September 14, 2013, the Intervenor held the 174th board of directors on September 14, 2013, and resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff from the office of director of C Care Center on the ground that the Intervenor “the Plaintiff was removed from C Care Assistance Board E and complied with the order to recover the benefits paid unfairly to E”. On September 26, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was dismissed from the office of director of C Care Center as of October 31, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant removal”). C.

On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2013Da430, and the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on December 27, 2013 on the ground that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s application for remedy is unlawful.”

On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as the Central 2014 Sea 66, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 2, 2014 on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes a worker prescribed by the Labor Standards Act, but the instant disposition does not constitute an unfair dismissal.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute exists concerning the instant case’s ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 18, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion was based on the premise that he is an employee under the Labor Standards Act under the direction and supervision of the intervenor, and the removal disposition of this case was conducted without undergoing legitimate disciplinary proceedings, and E by the intervenor to the plaintiff.