1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are the part arising from the intervention of the third party by the defendant intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company entrusted with the guard and protection of the C institution.

B. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff (D), a security instructor, entered into an employment contract between the former service company, C’s management of assets, and provided C’s services such as guidance for security guards.

C. From January 1, 2017, the Intervenor entrusted C’s security and protection services to a third party, and decided to succeed to the work of the previous worker who had performed security services.

Accordingly, on January 30, 2017, an intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff between January 1, 2017 and March 31, 2017 with the term of the labor contract as three months from January 1, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant employment contract”). D.

On February 22, 2017, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on March 31, 2017 that the contract term expires.

E. On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the termination of employment relationship with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on March 31, 2017, on the ground that the Intervenor’s termination of employment relationship constitutes an unfair dismissal. However, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on July 12, 2017.

On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on August 10, 2017, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on October 11, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6]

2. At the time of the preparation of the instant employment contract, as the chief of the headquarters belonging to the Intervenor at the time of the preparation of the Plaintiff’s assertion, “E, a general manager of the Intervenor’s personnel and administrative affairs, who was in charge of the Intervenor’s personnel and administrative affairs, prepared a nominal contract for three months, and entered into this contract on the face of the employer, and after the expiration of the duration of the settlement,” and the Plaintiff’s formal contract period is three months.