1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 3, and 4, Eul's evidence 1 and 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings);

A. From December 201, the Plaintiff concluded a fixed-term employment contract with the Defendant each year and worked as a sort of recycled goods as a sponsor. On April 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time with the Defendant and served as a sponsor of recycled goods.

B. On November 3, 2016, the Defendant Disciplinary Committee decided to dismiss the Plaintiff’s disciplinary dismissal against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant dismissal”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s absence from work without permission, absence from work place, absence from work place, and non-performance of instructions, took place from June 8, 2016 to October 21, 2016. While the Plaintiff filed a petition for reexamination against this, the Plaintiff was dismissed on December 5, 2016.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff worked as a street cleaners who is not a source of recyclable goods.

However, since the defendant did not recognize it and it may endanger the plaintiff's status by dismissing the plaintiff, the plaintiff is seeking confirmation that the plaintiff is in the position of the defendant's inorganic contract worker (job worker: street cleaners worker).

(2) The Defendant: The Plaintiff, not a street cleaners, was employed as a volunteer for a simple labor source, and worked as a volunteer for a recyclable product.

The plaintiff does not have the defendant's status as an employee any longer according to the dismissal of the case, and thus there is no interest in confirmation of the lawsuit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the dismissal of this case was unfair and the plaintiff is in the status of the defendant's inorganic contract worker, and the defendant contests this issue. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is recognized as the benefit of confirmation.

C. In determining whether the Plaintiff was working as the Defendant’s street cleaners, the circumstances that acknowledged the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: ① Article 4 of the “B Military Arms Contract and the Management Regulations for Fixed-Term Workers” refers to indefinite contract workers and fixed-term workers.