2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that employs 200 full-time workers and operates passenger transport business. The Intervenor, from August 6, 201 to August 31, 201, served as a driver from September 1, 201 after receiving urban bus route dogs from the Plaintiff from August 6, 201, and served as a driver from September 1, 201, and was notified of the termination of the term of labor contract on September 1, 2013.

B. On October 21, 2013, the Intervenor asserted that he/she was forced to make an unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff, and filed an application for remedy with the Ginam Regional Labor Relations Commission. On December 19, 2013, the said Regional Labor Relations Commission made an application for remedy by deeming that the Plaintiff’s notification to the Intervenor of termination of the labor contract relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal.

C. On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on January 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission, as the Intervenor was converted to an employee without a fixed period of time on August 6, 2013, terminated employment relationship on the ground of the expiration of the contract term is dismissal, and on the ground that the application for remedy is unfair dismissal, the Plaintiff maintained the first trial tribunal of the said Regional Labor Relations Commission which accepted the application for remedy on the ground that the application for remedy is unfair dismissal, and dismissed

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 33, and the purport of the entire pleadings

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

A. In the case of the Plaintiff’s asserted on-board employees, they are employed through the document screening, interview screening, route therapy, and practical test. As such, the period of practice on-board employees is not determined whether they are employed or not, and the Plaintiff did not pay wages during that period, so it cannot be deemed that the period of practice on-board employees is included in the period of work.

The starting point of the employment contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor is September 1, 201, which was prepared after passing the practical examination, and the contract is extended twice every year thereafter. Thus, the contract is terminated by the expiration of the contract period around August 31, 2013.

Therefore, it is true.