1. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on February 25, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor against the Central 2015 Supplementary dismissal.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The plaintiff company is a corporation that employs approximately 100 full-time workers engaged in apartment consignment management business, and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating") is a person who served as the managing director of the apartment that the plaintiff company manages upon entrustment.

B. On January 1, 2014, the Intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff Company and worked as the head of the management office of the B apartment located in early December 31 of the same year. On January 6, 2015, the Intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff Company and the head of the management office of the B apartment located in the Dong Sea (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On January 6, 2015, the period of the labor contract was determined by January 5, 2016.

C. On April 10, 2015, the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment held an emergency meeting and decided to terminate the contract with the Plaintiff Company on the “cases for the failure to pay the team leader’s allowance and the partial reduction of the allowance for facility articles following the abolition of the team leader’s office.”

On the other hand, the auditor of the instant apartment from April 10 to 20, 2015 submitted an audit report containing 11 opinions on the instant apartment management office, including the long-term repair appropriations, the charge for inspection of electrical measuring instruments, the payment of allowances due to the abolition of the position of the head of the security guards and the payment of part of the wages for the employees of facilities, etc.

On April 17, 2015, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment in this case notified the Plaintiff Company of the termination of the entrusted management contract of the apartment in this case, and the Plaintiff Company filed an objection against the above termination notice on April 27, 2015, but the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment in this case notified the Plaintiff Company that the contract was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff Company breached substantially the entrusted management contract.

However, the entrustment contract between the plaintiff company and the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case is not actually terminated.