1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is a local government. The Plaintiff entered into a labor contract (hereinafter “first labor contract”) with the Intervenor during the period of the labor contract on February 27, 2013 from March 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013; and the term of the labor contract was fixed from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 (hereinafter “second labor contract”); and the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract (hereinafter “second labor contract”); and on June 24, 2014, the term of the labor contract was fixed as between July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “third labor contract”); and the Plaintiff was working for school accounting assistant as a school accounting assistant who is a public school.

B. On January 1, 2015, the Intervenor terminated the labor contract relationship with the Plaintiff on the grounds that the contract term expires.

(hereinafter “Termination of the instant employment relationship”). C.

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the termination of the labor relationship of this case constitutes unfair dismissal and applied for remedy against unfair dismissal. On April 7, 2015, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s expectation to convert the contract into an indefinite position is not recognized, and the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor has expired as the contract term expires.”

On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission. On August 18, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 2-2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 intervenor implemented the policy that “the promotion of employment stability and treatment improvement of educational practical staff”, and according to this, he is a full-time employee.