1. On August 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for review between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor for review.

The details and details of the decision on reexamination was established on January 19, 2001, and approximately fifty full-time workers are employed, engaging in the construction business, etc. of electrical fire-fighting.

From April 19, 2014 to December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff performed electrical design and supervision under the Intervenor’s jurisdiction.

On December 1, 2015, an intervenor reported the loss of the national pension, health insurance, employment insurance, and industrial accident compensation insurance (hereinafter “fourth-party insurance”) related to the Plaintiff on the ground of “retirement from office due to personal circumstances”.

On February 17, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Intervenor was dismissed from office as of December 1, 2015,” and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On April 26, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission received an application for remedy from the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on December 1, 2015, and the dismissal was erroneous in the process of not giving written notice.”

On June 2, 2016, an intervenor dissatisfied with this, filed an application for review seeking the revocation of the decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On August 22, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission and dismissed the plaintiff's request for remedy on the ground that "the plaintiff is not an intervenor's worker, not an intervenor's worker, and the plaintiff was dismissed on December 1, 2015. Even if the plaintiff and the intervenor recognize the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the intervenor, the plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff shall not be deemed to have been made on December 1, 2015."

hereinafter referred to as "the decision of the retrial in this case"). [In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 12, 13, Eul evidence No. 4, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the purport of the decision of the retrial in this case is whether the plaintiff is a worker of the intervenor or not.