1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately five full-time workers and engages in the business of maintaining cultural seedlings in Seoul Metropolitan Government and providing education and education.

Since February 1, 2015, the intervenor joined the plaintiff and performed the management of the building owned by the plaintiff.

B. On December 18, 2017, the director general of the Plaintiff Secretariat notified the Intervenor that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated due to the expiration of the period on December 31, 2017” (hereinafter “instant notice of the termination of the labor relationship”).

C. On January 5, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the notice of the termination of the instant labor relationship constituted unfair dismissal.

On March 6, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “A plaintiff and intervenor, despite having concluded a non-fixed-term employment contract, notified by the Director-General of the Plaintiff Secretariat D of the termination of the instant employment relationship on the ground of the expiration of the contract term constitutes unfair dismissal.”

Seoul 2018 Daz. 51, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case").

On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on May 30, 2018 on the same ground as the instant initial inquiry court.

(Central 2017 Annexed 340, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that no dispute exists, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Intervenor’s defense prior to the merits was deemed to have filed the instant lawsuit by proxy of the Plaintiff president. However, at the time of the instant lawsuit, B was disqualified as the chief director. At the time of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff Secretariat D filed the instant lawsuit under the name of B by forging the power of attorney, etc.

Therefore, since a person who does not have legitimate authority has filed the lawsuit of this case, this case.