1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,496,774 as well as to the plaintiff on June 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company and served as the chief of the electricity division of B apartment, and the Defendant issued a written notice to the Plaintiff around September 22, 2014, stating that “a labor contract is terminated as of the 30th day of the same month,” and then notified the Plaintiff on the 25th day of the same month that “a labor contract is terminated as of the 30th day of the same month on the ground that the Plaintiff instigated the employees of the above apartment management office to interfere with the above apartment management business.”

B. On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”), and on February 5, 2015, the said commission stated the reasons indicated in the table below, and “the disposition for the termination of the contract that the Defendant performed on September 30, 2014 by the Plaintiff is unfair,” and the Defendant determined that “the period of termination of the contract that the Defendant performed on September 30, 2014 is unfair.” The Defendant reinstated the Plaintiff within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written ruling and paid the amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff could have received if he/she

Whether the labor contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a contract with a three-month period fixed, ① the defendant entered into an entrustment management contract with C Co., Ltd. on the two-year housing management business, and appears to have entered into an employment contract with other workers, including the plaintiff, in order to perform their duties during the above-term period, ② in the case of other workers including the plaintiff, a written employment contract with a fixed period of three months has been entered into instead, and in the case of other workers, a separate employment contract has been entered into for three months after the lapse of three months, ③ the defendant was present at the examination meeting and stated that he entered into an employment contract on the premise that he will work for one year, and ④ the employment contract with the plaintiff and the labor contract with the plaintiff.