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.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) is a company that ordinarily employs about 10 workers and operates a reading room, reading room, franchise business, etc., and directly operates four reading rooms, and entered into a franchise agreement with 21 reading rooms, including “D stores” located in the Gunposi C and 5th floor (hereinafter “instant franchise store”).

B. On January 8, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that “E dismissed the Plaintiff on November 10, 2017,” which is the owner of the instant franchise store, as the respondent, made an application for unfair dismissal, and then, on February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff changed the respondent to the Intervenor.

On March 7, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing an application for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor is not recognized as a party to the application for remedy because he/she is not in the position of employer against the plaintiff.”

C. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the said initial inquiry tribunal, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on the same ground as the said initial inquiry tribunal on June 11, 2018 (hereinafter “instant initial inquiry”) (hereinafter “instant initial inquiry”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff reported and supported the publication of the recruitment of the instant franchise store posted by the Intervenor on October 2016; (b) on October 26, 2016, after having interview with F, etc., an employee of the Intervenor, the Plaintiff started working at the instant franchise store on November 1, 2016; (c) G, an employee of the Intervenor, provided education on the Plaintiff regarding the duties; (d) the Plaintiff’s working hours were adjusted from 12 hours to 8 hours; (e) the Plaintiff was changed to the lower class of the instant franchise store on the proposal of F on January 16, 2017; and (e) the Plaintiff was performing duties such as preparing and reporting the work site upon receiving the direction of the Intervenor; and (e) the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the Plaintiff.