1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The details and details of the decision made by reexamination and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) are companies established on November 2, 2001, which employ approximately seven hundred workers and run security business, etc.

On July 16, 2014, an intervenor entered into a contract with the head of the management office of B apartment and the head of the Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu Office for the security service of B apartment (from July 16, 2014 to July 15, 2015) by setting a period of one year.

On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff joined the Intervenor and served as security guards at B apartment units which are security service businesses.

On July 16, 2015, an intervenor terminated his/her employment contract with the Plaintiff on the ground of “the expiration of the Plaintiff’s employment period”.

On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Plaintiff was subject to unfair dismissal, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on September 22, 2015 on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s right to renew the labor contract is not recognized.”

On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on October 15, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on January 12, 2016, on the ground that “The Plaintiff is deemed to have the right to renew the labor contract, but there is a reasonable ground to refuse the renewal of the

(hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination” (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”) is without dispute. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff agreed to renew an employment contract to the Plaintiff at the time of the recruitment interview, the Plaintiff’s right to renew the employment contract is recognized. The Plaintiff’s right to renew the employment contract is recognized.

C (the head of the B Apartment Management Office) is not recognized as the grounds asserted by the Intervenor in the course of requesting the replacement of the Plaintiff, who is a security guard, so there is no reasonable ground to refuse the renewal of the labor contract.

Other security guards shall sell recycled goods (such as scrap metal, etc.) to be used for the welfare of residents without permission, and use them at their work hours.