1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the part resulting from the intervention is the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment that the court should explain on this part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

A. The gist of the party's assertion 1) The intervenor alleged that the plaintiff's evaluation of work performance was refused due to the low work performance compared to the worker who has been converted into a non-contractual position. However, Article 5 of the Intervenor's Regulations on the Management of indefinite Contract Workers (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of this case") stipulates procedures for evaluation of work performance in addition to the evaluation of work performance, so it cannot be deemed that the conversion of indefinite contract position is determined only by the evaluation of work performance. The intervenor's evaluation of work performance is simply simple and simple ruptures without the classification of work types of fixed-term workers after the evaluation of work performance according to the absolute evaluation method, and it is not possible to consider any measures to reduce the difference between the evaluation criteria and the direction in advance. According to Article 5 (2) of the Rules of this case, the deliberation of the personnel committee for the conversion of indefinite contract position by the plaintiff's evaluation of work performance by the plaintiff's evaluation of work performance by the plaintiff's voluntary evaluation of work performance by the plaintiff's voluntary evaluation of work performance by the plaintiff's.