The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a local government that employs not less than five full-time workers and operates the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Transport Broadcasting (hereinafter “Transportation Broadcasting”) in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Establishment of Administrative Organizations.

B. On April 24, 2006, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff and carried out the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the transport broadcast B. From February 21, 2007 to October 29, 2007, the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) sent the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation of the operation

C. According to the decision to broadcast and abolish the “C” program, which the intervenor was in charge of the smoked service as of June 3, 2016, when the transport broadcast was to move the office building to the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Office, the transport broadcast D notified the intervenors on May 16, 2016 to terminate the contract as of June 3, 2016.

(hereinafter “Notification of Termination of the instant contract”). D.

On August 16, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the notice of termination of the instant contract constituted unfair dismissal.

On October 10, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the application for remedy to the effect that “the intervenor is an employee under the Labor Standards Act and is a fixed-term employee, but is not entitled to renew the labor contract.”

E. On November 18, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for review seeking revocation of the said determination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On February 10, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission was an intervenor under the Labor Standards Act, and was an employee under Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers, and was made only on the ground that the Intervenor temporarily suspended the broadcast of the program in preparation for the relocation of the office building.