2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

A. An intervenor is a local government that employs 600 full-time workers under Article 2(2) of the Local Autonomy Act and operates a C-Gu public health clinic as one of the places of business while rendering public services, such as residents’ welfare and self-government administration.

Plaintiff

A, on January 1, 2012, and on October 1, 2011, Plaintiff B joined the National Democratic Union Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “instant Trade Union”) as a person who was employed as a worker for a fixed-term period at C public health clinic and served as a sports center or nurse at C public health clinic and was notified of the expiration of the term of the employment contract as of December 31, 2014.

B. On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the instant labor union rejected an application for remedy filed by the Intervenor on December 31, 2015, that the notice of the expiration of the term of the labor contract as of December 31, 2014 constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices (hereinafter referred to as “unfinite Labor Relations Commission”); however, on May 7, 2015, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiffs’ legitimate right to expect the renewal of the labor contract.

(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

Accordingly, the plaintiffs and the labor union of this case were dissatisfied with the initial inquiry court of this case, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on June 11, 2015 (central 2015da556/No102 consolidation). However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on October 20, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant reexamination decision” among the above dismissed rulings, the Central Review Decision 2015da556 related to the reexamination. 【Grounds for Recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of all pleadings.

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) Plaintiff A and the Intervenor A Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers on January 1, 2012 (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”).

Health promotion projects to which the period limit prescribed in the main sentence of Article 4(1) applies.