A. Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, the Plaintiff is a local government that employs 120 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 is a member of the National Democratic Union Trade Union (hereinafter “Trade Union”) who was employed as a fixed-term worker on January 9, 2008 by the Plaintiff and worked as a physical clinic at a public health clinic B at a public health clinic on December 31, 2014 and notified of the expiration of the term of the labor contract as of December 31,

B. On March 27, 2015, the Defendant Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the notice of expiration of the term of the labor contract rendered by the Plaintiff as of December 31, 2014 constituted unfair interests and unfair labor practices.

A visiting health management business 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 Defendant’s assistant intervenor constitutes a case where he/she worked for more than two years including the period before January 1, 2013, and thus, it should be deemed that he/she entered into an employment contract

In addition, in light of the fact that an employment contract has been renewed for several years, it is unfair to notify the Plaintiff of the expiration of the contract term in this case on the ground that the contract term as of December 31, 2014 has expired without reasonable grounds.

C. On May 18, 2015, Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the defendant’s assistant intervenor’s right to expect the renewal of his/her employment contract, and accepted an application for remedy for unfair dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff’s refusal to renew his/her employment contract is difficult to be deemed reasonable, and “the contract term expires on December 31, 2014 by the plaintiff to the defendant’s assistant intervenor.”