1. The National Labor Relations Commission on February 14, 2017 and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the National Public Transport and Social Services Union.

The plaintiff is an incorporated foundation which is entrusted by C. C. to operate the D Desiringwon (hereinafter referred to as the “Hingwon”).

On May 6, 2015, the Intervenor B (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff and worked as a rehabilitation teacher in E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant facilities”) who is ordinarily employed at least 50 persons who were separated from the Plaintiff’s desire in the instant case and worked as a sanatorium for the homeless, and the contract renewal was refused.

On July 26, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Plaintiff’s notification on the expiration of the term of the labor contract constituted unfair dismissal, but the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on September 23, 2016.

(J) On October 25, 2016, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 25, 2016, and the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on February 14, 2017.

(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the ruling on reexamination of this case as to the following facts: (a) there was no dispute with the pertinent part of the ruling on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of the same case (hereinafter “instant ruling on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of the same case”); (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the ruling on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case is employing employees according to the criteria for the placement of the employees in a sanatorium of the homeless; (c) the legal number of life guides at the time was all satisfied; and (d) there was no stipulation that the public notice of employment at the time of employment of the Plaintiff was possible to be converted to regular employees; and (d) there was no provision on the renewal

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor has the right to expect the renewal of the contract, and since the termination of the contract with the intervenor is reasonable, the decision of the retrial in this case must be revoked in an unlawful manner.

As shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.