1. On May 22, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered the Central Labor Relations Commission’s decision as to May 22, 2013, the 2013rd Sea 138/Bno23 (Joinders) between

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a nonprofit corporation that operates a social job support project for the unemployed, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was employed by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2010 as the head of the social company establishment support team, etc.

B. On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of the term of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor on October 25, 2012 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On November 21, 2012, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application on January 24, 2013 by deeming that the instant notification was a notification on the expiration of the contract term.

On February 13, 2013, the intervenor dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal and filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. On May 22, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the plaintiff terminated the labor relationship unfairly even though the intervenor’s legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract was recognized.

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

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

A. In the case of an employee who entered into a fixed-term employment contract after the enforcement of the Plaintiff’s assertion period system and the Act on the Protection, etc. of Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-term Act”), the requirements for recognition of renewal right should be more strict in light of the purport of the Fixed-Term Act. In the case of an employee who entered into a fixed-term employment contract after the enforcement of the said Act, the requirements for recognition of renewal right cannot be the basis for renewal right under the labor contract written between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor; the personnel committee is the procedure to be held only when a standing director is to hire a full-time employee;