A. Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, the Plaintiff is a local government that employs more than 900 full-time workers and operates a public health clinic as one of its business places while rendering public services, such as residents’ welfare and self-government administration. The Defendant Intervenor A is a member of the National Democratic Union Workers’ Union (hereinafter “Trade Union”) who was employed by the Plaintiff as a part-time worker on January 1, 2009, and the Defendant Intervenor B (hereinafter “Defendant Intervenor A and B”) as a part-time nurse on April 1, 2012 and was employed by the Plaintiff as a visiting nurse at C Public Health Center as of December 31, 2014 while serving as a visiting nurse at C Public Health Center.

B. The Defendant Intervenor asserted that the notice of expiration of the term of the labor contract rendered by the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2014 constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and filed a request with the labor union for remedy with the Defendant Intervenor A on March 27, 2015, and the Defendant Intervenor B filed a request with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 30, 2015.

A visiting health management project cannot be subject to the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Fixed-Term Act. Even if the above proviso is applicable, since the main sentence of Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Act was applied from January 1, 2013 to the Ministry of Health and Welfare in accordance with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Intervenor joining the Defendant’s work for more than two years including the period before January 1, 2013 constitutes a case where the Defendant’s Intervenor entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time.

In addition, in light of the fact that an employment contract has been renewed for several years, the plaintiff notified the expiration of the term of the contract in this case on December 31, 2014 without reasonable grounds, for the reason that the term of the contract has expired as of December 31, 2014. This constitutes unfair dismissal, which is a disadvantage that the defendant's supplementary intervenor and the labor union have been dismissed.