1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In order to contribute to the promotion of the welfare of the elderly, the Inspector of the Review Decision has established three centers, including the D Center (hereinafter referred to as the “instant center”) with the purpose of contributing to the promotion of the welfare of the elderly and established on February 6, 2007 and employed 12 full time workers, and operates welfare projects for the elderly at home.

The plaintiff joined the intervenor on July 1, 2008 and works as the head of the facility of the center of this case.

November 27, 2017.

On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Intervenor and re-entered it as the head of the facility of the instant center.

(hereinafter “instant labor contract”). On January 3, 2019, the Intervenor notified that “the Intervenor has no intent to renew the contract.”

On February 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the Intervenor’s termination of the labor relationship upon the expiration of the contract term on January 3, 2019 is unfair.”

On April 18, 2019, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor terminated upon the expiration of the contract term, and the Plaintiff has no right to renew the employment contract.”

On May 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 23, 2019, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry court on August 22, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”), without dispute, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case, began to work at the instant center upon the Plaintiff’s request that the Intervenor take charge of the establishment of the instant center permanently and permanently, without setting the period of work from the Intervenor in 2008, and then renewed the employment contract on a

Although the term of employment is stipulated in the employment contract signed by the Plaintiff with the intervenor on December 12, 2017, it is merely a formal entry under the annual salary contract.

November 27, 2017.