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.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a local government that employs 1,000 full-time workers and performs autonomous affairs, etc. under Article 9 of the Local Autonomy Act, and is a local government that is running public funeral establishments, which employs 10 full-time workers and employs 10 or more full-time workers in Incheon City under Article 9 of the Ordinance on Funeral Services, etc. (hereinafter “instant funeral establishments”). The Intervenor is a person who is employed in the instant funeral establishments and provided the Plaintiff with labor by entering the instant funeral establishments.

B. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the term of the labor contract expired as of September 30, 2016, and the Intervenor asserted that the said notification was unfair, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on November 1, 2016. The Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy with the purport that the Plaintiff’s application for unfair dismissal was justifiable. On December 27, 2016, the Intervenor’s total period of employment did not exceed two years. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s legitimate renewal of the labor contract was formed, and thus, the termination of the labor contract of this case was justifiable.

C. On February 7, 2017, the Intervenor appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 7, 2017, and the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the initial trial on April 10, 2017 and accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute exists concerning the instant case’s ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 4 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that the review of this case by the National Labor Relations Commission is unlawful and should be revoked as follows.

1 The fact that the intervenor did not have worked for the purpose of wages for 7 days during the transfer period, even if he had worked for the first time on September 24, 2014, and that the intervenor did not have a good-time management during the transfer period, and that the employer did not enforce such acceptance.