1. On June 14, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s 2016 Supplementary Notes 309C among the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was employed by the Plaintiff as a person operating a physical training service business (hereinafter “instant place of business”) under the trade name, which employs nine full-time workers at the Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building and the first basement level, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff as a person in charge of general affairs and twitners in the instant place of business.

B. On December 31, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed on October 26, 2015 from the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on February 25, 2016, deeming that the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated by the agreement termination.

C. On March 22, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On June 14, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial inquiry court and made a decision citing the Intervenor’s application for remedy (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Intervenor does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act because he did not receive specific direction and supervision from the Plaintiff regarding his duties, and thus, the issue of unfair dismissal may not arise. On other premise, the instant retrial ruling that recognized the Plaintiff’s unfair dismissal against the Intervenor and issued a remedy order to the Plaintiff is unlawful. 2) On October 21, 2015, the Intervenor called that the Intervenor would find the Plaintiff as “E” and “I will do so.” The Intervenor continued to resign from the Plaintiff, but the Intervenor’s and the Intervenor’s transfer of the Plaintiff’s members as directed.