A. The plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives of apartment A located in Seocho-gu, Yongsan-gu.

B. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff employed the Intervenor joining the Defendant, who is a housing manager (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) as the head of the apartment management office, and determined the period from the date of employment to November 26, 2016 as one year from the date of employment, and agreed that the period shall be three months from the date of employment, and that the period shall be three months from the date of employment, if deemed inappropriate for the continuous employment of the Intervenor when the period of employment or the period of employment was terminated.

(hereinafter “instant employment contract”). C.

On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a “Notice of Refusal of the Employment Contract” stating the following reasons, and received it by the Intervenor around that time:

(1) As to the issue at issue of heating costs, the representative of the Plaintiff instructed the supplementary intervenor to report and explain the cause and solution methods, etc. to the representative of the Plaintiff, who is a working-level participant, and the supplementary intervenor to report and explain the explanation to the representative of the Plaintiff. The supplementary intervenor is not an expert on the above issue because the supplementary intervenor is qualified as a housing manager, and it cannot be understood even with the explanation, and the same applies in the future. As such, the chief of the management office refused the direction by using a person who has both housing manager, electricity, fire fighting, and construction qualifications and did not have the ability to supervise and supervise the management office (hereinafter “instant ground for refusal”) as well as by using a person who has no capacity to supervise the management office (hereinafter “instant ground for refusal”).

(ii) from the end of November 2015.