1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. An intervenor is a school juristic person that was established on April 14, 1964 and operates the original campus at a school of a household (hereinafter “original campus”).

The plaintiff is a person born B.

B. On March 1, 2013, the Intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, stating that “The Intervenor employs the Plaintiff as “office staff” of the team of the main campus C Team of the main campus, who is responsible for performing the duties of seal impression, and the contract period is from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014.”

In addition, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor concluded a labor contract with the same content as the contract term from March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015 at the end of the above term.

C. On January 19, 2015, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the term of the Plaintiff’s labor contract for office staff expires on February 28, 2015.

On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that “the Intervenor’s act of the Intervenor who terminated his/her employment contract as of February 28, 2015 without converting the Plaintiff into “inorganic Contract position,” and applied for remedy for unfair dismissal as of February 28, 2015.” On May 7, 2015, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that “the Plaintiff has a legitimate right to expect the transition of “inorganic Contract position,” and there is no reasonable reason to refuse the transition.” In determining that “the Intervenor, on February 28, 2015, recognized that the termination of the employment contract as of February 28, 2015 is unfair and that the Intervenor’s act of the Intervenor who terminated his/her employment contract constitutes unfair dismissal.”

On June 18, 2015, the intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission under the Ministry of Labor Ordinance No. 2015, 2015.

On September 9, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission held that “the Plaintiff has the right to expect the conversion of “inorganic contract position,” but the Intervenor has a reasonable ground to refuse such conversion,” and held that “the Plaintiff’s termination of the employment contract on February 28, 2015 and rejection of the Plaintiff’s petition for remedy is below the judgment, recognizing the termination of the employment contract as a legitimate termination of the employment contract.”