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 local government that establishes and operates a City Art Group (hereinafter “Arts Group”) pursuant to the A City Art Group Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the City Art Group (amended by Ordinance No. 1238, Oct. 12, 2015; hereinafter “Arts Group Ordinance”).

The intervenors are non-permanent members of the Art Group B and D, and the Intervenor C are part of the Art Group, and the Intervenor is part of the Art Group C.

B. The Plaintiff did not re-commission the intervenors whose appointment period expires on December 31, 2015, on the ground that the Intervenor received less than 60 points in the regular rating in 2015 and fell under “A” of the rating grade.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal to re-commission”)

The Intervenor alleged that the refusal to re-commission the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on February 1, 2016, but the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on March 31, 2016.

On May 12, 2016, the intervenors dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 12, 2016. On July 26, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the above initial inquiry court between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and issued an order for remedy to the Plaintiff, on the ground that “the Intervenor is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the Intervenor’s legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract is recognized, and the refusal to renew the contract constitutes an unfair dismissal because there is no justifiable reason for refusal to renew the contract.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment for reexamination”). 【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion that the plaintiff entrusted the intervenor with administrative affairs that require expertise in performance, and the art group operated autonomously by the members, and the plaintiff directs and supervises the intervenors, or the intervenors.