1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

An intervenor in the status of a party to the instant decision is a company that has its head office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and employs 50 full-time workers and operates a foreign language private teaching institute, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person who was enrolled in the Intervenor on March 3, 2014 and works as an English instructor.

For the same year as January 28, 2015, the intervenor in the reduction of the hours of the instant lecture and the dismissal of the Plaintiff.

3.2. On two occasions, the Plaintiff’s lecture time was reduced by 27-41 hours a month due to the reduction in the number of students and consolidation of lectures, etc.

(hereinafter “The instant lecture hours reduction allocation”). On April 17, 2015, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff on the ground that “In spite of continuous occurrence of complaints from students and parents about the details of lectures, etc., the Intervenor did not improve them.”

(2) On April 27, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 27, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application for remedy”); and on June 22, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission cannot be deemed as a disciplinary action for salary reduction on the ground that the instant application for remedy was filed on the ground that the Intervenor’s withdrawal of the instant disposition and the instant disposition for dismissal became extinct.

On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal by the National Labor Relations Commission, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on July 23, 2015, but was dismissed on October 23, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case is as follows.