1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

The circumstances and contents of the decision on reexamination were established on June 30, 1995, and the corporation ordinarily employs about 10 workers and operates the weekly publication business. The plaintiff entered the intervenor around 2001 and served as a reporter from May 201, and again worked as a reporter from March 201.

On January 2018, the Intervenor sent a notice of dismissal to the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). Name: The Plaintiff’s department: The date of dismissal from office in violation of Article 49 of the Rules of Employment: A notice of dismissal on January 2, 2018 and on the date of such dismissal pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 49 of the our Rules of Employment.

On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Intervenor’s notification of this case is unfair.

On May 28, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not an employee under the Labor Standards Act.”

On July 11, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to this and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On October 4, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s above request for reexamination on the same grounds as the first inquiry tribunal.

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff’s ground for recognition is without dispute; (b) the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the entire argument as to the legitimacy of the instant decision by reexamination; and (d) the purport of the entire argument, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor and received monthly salary of two million won; (b) the Intervenor’s office was the Plaintiff’s position; and (c) the Intervenor issued an order indicating that the Plaintiff was affiliated with the Intervenor; and (d) the Intervenor reported the four-party insured status against the Plaintiff; and (e) dismissed the Plaintiff with a notice of dismissal stating the violation of the rules of employment

An intervenor is the plaintiff.