1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was a company that was established on April 14, 200 and engaged in civil engineering and construction business. Around 2014, the Defendant received a supply of and demand for landscaping works in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government District C District Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

B. On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a project work contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the following contents, and served as the so-called “principal officer” at the construction site of this case, after graduating from the department of landscaping.

(A) In order for the Defendant to take charge of the management, etc. of the instant construction, the Defendant appointed D, separate from the Plaintiff, the head office, as a field director, to put it into the said construction site. The term of the contract is from April 14, 2014 to the completion of the relevant construction work period.

1. The maximum term of employment contracts shall not exceed the date on which the employment contract ends;

(c)when intending to be employed for a specified period of time, that period may not exceed the date of the species of activity;

2. Where the relevant business or the relevant type of work is completed even before the expiration date of the employment contract, the expiration date shall be the date of termination of the employment contract;

6. In principle, an employment contract shall be renewed on January 1 of each year until the completion of the relevant construction work, and it shall be automatically extended one year if no intention is intent of either party to terminate the contract at least one month before the relevant construction work is completed;

C. On November 2014, the head of the headquarters in charge of the Defendant’s civil engineering projects requested the Plaintiff to submit a letter of apology by posting a phone. However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the said request.

Since then on the 14th of the same month, the defendant issued a personnel order ordering 13 employees, including the plaintiff, to re-enter the 17th of the same month (hereinafter referred to as "instant standby order").