2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that employs approximately three hundred workers on a regular basis and engages in business facility management business, etc.

The plaintiff is a person employed by the intervenor on January 1, 2014 and worked as U.S. dollars.

B. On December 22, 2017, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that “the term of labor contract expires as of December 31, 2017” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On January 24, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission that the Intervenor as the respondent constituted unfair dismissal and filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal.

On March 22, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss an application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is a regular employee of an intervenor, and is subject to the age of 60, the retirement age under the rules of employment.” However, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy and at the retirement age during the dispute of the validity of dismissal, and the employment relationship was terminated.”

On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking revocation of the said initial inquiry tribunal.

On June 19, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision revoking the initial inquiry court and dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for remedy (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”) on the ground that “the Plaintiff, as an intervenor’s fixed-term employee, shall not be subject to the retirement age under the rules of employment. As trust was created between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor that the labor contract may be renewed, there exists the right to renew the renewal period. The Plaintiff is recognized as reasonable grounds for refusing the renewal of the labor contract, such as the Plaintiff’s abusive and verbal abuse to the said employee during working hours, refusal of legitimate instructions from the superior.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's argument that the intervenor succeeded to the employment of the workers belonging to D from D (hereinafter "D").