1. We affirm that the dismissal of the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 30, 2017 is null and void.

2. The Defendant on December 1, 2017, to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s employment contract between December 1, 2014 and November 30, 2017 between December 1, 2014 and November 30, 2017, which the Defendant’s C Center works as a visiting specialist (hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

(2) The instant employment contract contains the following contents as to whether the Plaintiff was employed in general service or re-contract.

- If the evaluation grade is above B during the contract period, preferential consideration shall be given to the employment of general workers (regular workers) after deliberation by the personnel committee.

- Where the principal intends to continuously renew a contract with a invited specialist, it shall be determined after the deliberation of the personnel committee, and in principle, the contract shall be renewed as a invited specialist, except where it is a D class as a result of the evaluation and where it is inappropriate to renew the contract

- The employment contract shall be terminated in cases where the work ability is significantly low as a result of the review of the personnel committee, or where it is deemed inappropriate to renew as an invited professional staff member.

B. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant’s personnel committee for the Plaintiff deliberated on whether to convert the Plaintiff into a general service, including the Plaintiff, on October 5, 2015. The Plaintiff, without converting the Plaintiff into a general service, has maintained as a visiting specialist and the remaining five persons have been decided to convert into a general service. 2) On November 21, 2016, the Defendant’s personnel committee deliberated on: (a) on the change of the Plaintiff’s general service with nine invited professionals whose contract expires; (b) on November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff did not convert into a general service, but maintained as a visiting specialist; and (c) on the expiration date of the contract, three of the remaining employees should be re-contracted into a visiting specialist; and (d) six of them decided to convert into a general service.

3. On October 31, 2017, the personnel committee of the defendant re-contracts with the plaintiff.