1. On September 9, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision 2016 Supplementary Notes between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The plaintiff is a local government that establishes and operates B school.

B. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) concluded a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on May 16, 2014 by setting the term of the labor contract from May 19, 2014 to February 28, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “first labor contract”) and worked as a special education worker at B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) during the said period, and entered into a labor contract between March 1, 2015 and February 29, 2016 by setting the term of the labor contract from February 27, 2015 to February 29, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “second labor contract”) as a special general education worker at B school during the said period.

C. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that their labor contract was terminated on February 29, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant notification”) D.

On March 11, 2016, the Intervenor asserted that the notice of the expiration of the instant case was unfair, and applied for remedy to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on May 24, 2016, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s request for remedy by deeming that the Intervenor’s legitimate right to expect the renewal of the labor contract (hereinafter “right to demand renewal”) is not recognized.

E. On June 27, 2016, the intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on June 27, 2016. On September 9, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the above initial inquiry court and issued an order for remedy against the plaintiff, deeming that the termination of labor relations only on the ground of the expiration of the labor contract period was null and void, as in the case of an unfair dismissal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion does not recognize a legitimate expectation of the renewal of an employment contract or the conversion into an inorganic contract position to the plaintiff's assertion.