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

A. An intervenor is a juristic person established on January 10, 1950 and engaged in construction business with approximately five thousand full time workers.

The Plaintiff is a person who was employed by the Intervenor on January 4, 2016 and was in charge of the construction structure design work, and was working for the Intervenor. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff was notified from the Intervenor that the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated on January 3, 2018 due to the expiration of the contract period (hereinafter “Notification of the termination of the instant labor contract”).

B. On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the notice of termination of the instant employment contract was an unfair dismissal.

On April 2, 2018, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s right to renew the labor contract is not recognized, and thus the instant notification of the termination of the labor contract is justifiable.”

C. On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court on July 27, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2, 4, 7, and 8, and 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: (a) the Plaintiff received the terms and conditions of the employment of contractual workers at the time of the recruitment interview and received the notice of the rejection once, and then received the notice of the failure, and (b) the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s promise that “the director of the construction business headquarters of the Intervenor would convert the Plaintiff into regular workers for two years after the entry into the building business headquarters,” which is the substantial personnel in the building business headquarters of the Plaintiff; (c) the Intervenor’s personnel officer after the Plaintiff’s entry means that he would be converted into regular workers unless there is any particular reason; (c) the Plaintiff renewed the employment contract with the Intervenor on January 4, 2017, which was after the entry into the Plaintiff, once again; and (d) the Plaintiff received the notice from the Intervenor that there