1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a local government delegated part of the administrative authority under the jurisdiction of the State under the Local Autonomy Act, and the Superintendent of an Office of Education, which is an executive agency under the Local Education Autonomy Act, is engaged in the affairs concerning education and arts within the jurisdiction of the State, and is engaged in 26,00 teachers and staff at 672 schools under its control. On September 1, 201, the Intervenor was employed as a registered security guard at B elementary school under the jurisdiction of the Office of Education in Incheon District Office of Education (hereinafter “instant school”).

B. On September 4, 2013, the Office of Education notified the intervenors of the notice of termination of labor contract relations with the following contents.

(hereinafter referred to as “the termination of the instant employment relationship” or “the instant dismissal” for the purpose of convenience

C. On October 8, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with respect to the termination of the employment relationship of the instant case with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “ Chungcheongnamnam Labor Relations Commission”), and on December 2, 2013, the Chungcheongnamnam Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on August 31, 2013 because the abolition of the police assigned for special guard on August 31, 2013 falls under Article 10-6(2) of the former Police Assigned for Special Guard Act (amended by Act No. 12600, May 20, 2014; hereinafter “former Police Assigned for Special Guard Act”).

Accordingly, on January 6, 2014, the intervenor applied for a review on the termination of the labor relationship of the instant case to the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “China”), and on March 14, 2014, China Labor Relations Commission concluded with the Plaintiff on March 14, 2014 (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) on the ground that the intervenor’s employment contract entered into with the Plaintiff around August 201 is “non-fixed-term employment contract,” and therefore, the termination of the instant labor contract constitutes unfair dismissal without justifiable grounds for dismissal, and the dismissal of the instant case is deemed unfair dismissal, and the amount equivalent to wages during the period of reinstatement and dismissal of the intervenor.