1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On December 13, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a health club or indoor golf driving range under the trade name called C Vice.

(A) On January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff’s instant golf practice course and indoor golf practice range (hereinafter “instant golf practice range”). From January 23, 2014, the instant golf practice range was conducted as a golf instructor in the instant golf practice range, the Intervenor did not prepare a separate contract with the Plaintiff.

B. On July 3, 2017, the Intervenor asserted that “the Intervenor himself is an employee of the workplace of this case, and the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed on May 29, 2017,” and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On August 29, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “the intervenor constitutes an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the dismissal made by the Plaintiff is unfair due to his/her failure to perform his/her duty of written notification.”

Seoul 2017 Daz. 1451, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case").

On December 13, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the instant initial inquiry court.

(Central 2017 Annexed 1011, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] without 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. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to be revoked on the following grounds.

1 The Plaintiff did not direct and supervise the Intervenor’s service through the Kakao Stockholm message, etc.

The intervenor informed the instant workplace of the time during which golf lessons can be provided unilaterally. In the instant workplace, the intervenor, including the intervenor, was merely guiding the members of the training time table determined and notified by the intervenor.

In addition, the plaintiff is the intervenor.