2. The plaintiff's remaining part of the lawsuit in this case is dismissed.

2. As to the claim to confirm the invalidity of dismissal, there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of dismissal, in principle, since it is valid and appropriate to obtain a judgment to confirm the invalidity of dismissal in order to recover the original status and status based on the employment contract, if the term of the employment contract has expired after the dismissal.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 95Da199 Decided May 18, 200, etc.). According to the overall purport of the statement of evidence No. 12, testimony and oral argument of the witness F of the trial party, the Plaintiff was employed for one year from March 7, 2016 to March 6, 2017 as the contract term of one year, and thereafter the employment contract was renewed for one year from March 7, 2017 to March 6, 2018. Since the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated on March 6, 2018, seeking confirmation of the invalidation of dismissal is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation since the Plaintiff’s original status and status cannot be valid as well as proper means to recover the status and status.

As to this, even if the Plaintiff was employed as a fixed-term employee, if there is no notification of the termination of the contract one month prior to the termination of the contract pursuant to Article 10(2), the contract shall be considered to have been automatically extended. As the Defendant notified the termination of the contract on February 15, 2018, which is about 20 days prior to the expiration of the contract, not one month prior to the expiration of the contract, the instant contract was automatically renewed, and thereby, the period of the Plaintiff’s contract exceeds two years in total, the Plaintiff’s contract was converted to an inorganic contract pursuant to the Act on the Protection,

Sheet, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 15, respectively.