1. The National Labor Relations Commission of August 23, 2017, the Central Labor Relations Commission of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, shall be the Central 2017 Supplementary Notes.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on April 3, 1954 and engaged in financial business with approximately three thousand and five hundred full-time workers established in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C with its main office.

On July 23, 2012, the Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff as a fixed-term employee, and renewed the contract on a one-year or six-month basis, and worked at the real estate team, etc. of the Plaintiff’s Business Support Division.

B. On November 25, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the period of the labor contract expires as of December 31, 2016, and that the labor relationship is terminated.

(hereinafter “instant notice of termination of employment”) C.

On January 25, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the notice of termination of the instant labor relationship was unfair.

On May 10, 2017, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Intervenor’s right to renew the labor relationship is recognized as the renewal right, and the notification of the termination of the labor relationship of this case constitutes unfair dismissal as there is no reasonable ground for rejection of renewal.”

On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination on August 23, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 11, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the Intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor for a fixed period. When the Plaintiff entered into the employment contract with the Intervenor, the new establishment of the store was terminated, and the Intervenor may sufficiently expect that the contract may be rejected due to the opening and closing of the store or demand for human resources, and thus the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have a legitimate right to expect the renewal of the employment contract. 2) The Plaintiff’s head of the department to which the Intervenor belongs to clarify the Intervenor’s opinion of “re-acceptance” of the contract with the Intervenor