1. The National Labor Relations Commission shall relieve the unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices of the Central Labor Relations Commission on July 5, 2016.

The details and details of the decision on reexamination are established on January 5, 1990 and established and operated a Cpsy (hereinafter “instant mental hospital”), D Hospital, etc. as a legal entity that ordinarily employs approximately 290 workers and engages in medical business.

On December 3, 2013, the Intervenor joining the instant mental hospital and served as a guardian on December 3, 2013.

The National Health and Medical Services Industry Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant trade union”) is a national-level industrial trade union organized for workers engaged in the national health and medical industry, and its superior organization is the National Democratic Trade Union Federation.

On April 2, 2015, the Intervenor joined the instant trade union and organized the instant trade union E branch, and was elected as the head of that branch.

On April 6, 2015, the instant trade union requested the Plaintiff to conduct collective bargaining by notifying the Intervenor of the Intervenor’s joining the trade union. From April 28, 2015 to July 5, 2016, the instant trade union conducted collective bargaining with the Plaintiff more than 20 times.

On April 15, 2015, when the collective bargaining was in progress, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of the labor contract that “the period of the labor contract expires on April 30, 2015 and retires on May 1, 2015” (hereinafter “Notice of the expiration of the instant period”).

On May 1, 2015, the Intervenor and the instant trade union asserted that “the notification of the expiration of the period of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice” were applied to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for remedy.

On July 24, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission cited the application for remedy against the Intervenor’s unfair dismissal on the ground that the period of work under the agreement is merely a mere form, on the ground that “the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract for a uniform period of one year with all protectors, including a guardian who has served for more than two years, but had the guardian, other than the Intervenor continue to work without undergoing the procedure for renewal of the period of work.”