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

A. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Intervenor to have his/her employment contract term from July 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, and to have his/her employment success key counselor employed as his/her employment success key counselor, and from July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff served as his/her employment success key counselor at the employment center of the Gyeonggi-do Employment and Labor Agency.

On December 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with an intervenor to perform the same duties as the previous one from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

B. On December 23, 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff of the termination of employment relationship as of January 1, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). C.

On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On February 24, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the instant notification does not constitute unfair dismissal because the right to renew to the Plaintiff is not recognized.”

On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On May 26, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. On January 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is entitled to extend the contract period on a yearly basis by evaluating the fixed-term employment failure counselor who is at least 60 years of age as of January 1, 2014.

“The plan was announced,” and accordingly, the term of the labor contract in 2014 was extended from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

In addition, the head of the Employment Center stated that the term of the employment contract can be extended to the Plaintiff for one year even in 2015.

Therefore, labor contract is concluded on the Plaintiff.