1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

Gyeonggi-do enacted the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of C on March 22, 2016, and the intervenor is a foundation established pursuant to the above Ordinance on July 29, 2016, which employs approximately 300 full-time workers and operates regional-time job business.

Plaintiff

A, on January 22, 2015, and on October 18, 2004, Plaintiff B joined the Association D (hereinafter “instant Federation”) which is an incorporated association on October 18, 2004, and the D Ordinance was repealed as the head of Grade IV was dissolved on December 6, 2016, and withdrawn on December 31, 2016.

After February 20, 2017, the plaintiffs were employed by the participants as contract workers, and the plaintiff A served at the 1st team of women's ability development headquarters, and the plaintiff B served at the job creation team of the employment growth headquarters.

On February 7, 2018, the intervenor notified the plaintiffs of the result of the transition to regular positions.

Although the plaintiffs filed an objection with the intervenor on February 14, 2018, the intervenor dismissed the above objection as a result of the review by the personnel committee on February 14, 2018, and notified February 19, 2018 that the labor contract is terminated.

(hereinafter “instant notification”). On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the instant notification is unjust.”

On May 21, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy on the ground that “The Plaintiff is recognized as a full-time conversion right, but there are reasonable grounds for refusal of full-time conversion, and the right to renew the labor contract is not recognized.”

The Plaintiffs appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on June 29, 2018.

On September 18, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the above request for review on the same ground as the first inquiry tribunal.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiffs' arguments as to the legitimacy of the ruling of the reexamination of this case as to the facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 8, 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 7, and the whole purport of the pleading is the job conducted by the federation of this case.