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

A. The Plaintiff was established on November 22, 1991, and operated a building and a housing management business by employing 3,500 full-time workers from 26,00, 99-o-day, e.g., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., 99-day workers. The Intervenor joined the Plaintiff on November 6, 2014 and worked in the management office of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government B apartment (hereinafter the above apartment is referred to as the “instant apartment”, and the above management office is referred to as the “management office of this case”).

B. On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the Intervenor will be dismissed on November 6, 2015 on the ground that the labor contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor on November 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) was terminated on November 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant notification”) C.

On November 6, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission on the 20th day of the same month on the ground that the refusal by the Plaintiff to renew the instant labor contract constitutes unfair dismissal. However, on January 19, 2016, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the termination of the employment relationship is justifiable on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the instant labor contract is reasonable.

On February 11, 2016, the intervenor appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the initial trial tribunal. On April 28, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the ruling of the said Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission and determined that the termination of the instant labor contract is unfair.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] / 【No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. For the following reasons, the decision of the review of this case should be revoked because the decision of the review of this case is unfair.

1. frequent disputes between the occupants of the apartment of this case and the intervenors, and the management office of this case.