1. On July 23, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor A. 2015.

The plaintiff is a corporation established on January 8, 1996 and engaged in painting construction business, etc. using approximately forty-seven full-time workers, and the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the " participant") entered the company on April 1, 2013 and has served as a painting.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff did not renew the labor contract with the Intervenor whose term of the labor contract expires between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

(2) On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the termination of the instant labor contract constitutes an unfair dismissal. On April 10, 2015, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that the Intervenor had legitimate expectation for renewal of the labor contract, and that the Plaintiff’s refusal of the renewal of the labor contract is not deemed reasonable.

On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on July 23, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination, the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor as a fixed-term worker from February 14, 201 to December 31, 2012, and the management situation worsens, and the Intervenor’s labor contract relationship with the Intervenor was terminated, but the Intervenor was employed as a fixed-term worker upon the Intervenor’s request from the Intervenor’s type C from April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s continuous employment period of one year and nine months has been converted to an inorganic contract worker pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “Period Act”).

An employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor,