1. On October 31, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair remedy between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant on October 31, 2017.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff Company is a corporation that employs approximately fifty full-time workers and engages in multi-family housing and building management business.

B. On October 1, 2016, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff Company during the period of the employment contract from October 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (three months) and served as the head of the management office at C Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in the sports south-si, which the Plaintiff Company manages on consignment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The Intervenor, while continuing to work even after the expiration of the term of the above employment contract, drafted the employment contract between January 23, 2017 and the Plaintiff on January 23, 2017 (No. B. 1; hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

C. On March 31, 2017, the Intervenor was notified by the Plaintiff that the labor relationship was terminated due to the expiration of the term of the labor contract.

(hereinafter “instant notice of termination of employment”). D.

Although the intervenor entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff on January 23, 2017, the plaintiff unilaterally alters the term of the employment contract of this case to three months by the representative director D of the plaintiff and notified the termination of the employment contract of this case, it constitutes an unfair dismissal.

On May 31, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 24, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission stated the period of the labor contract as “from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (1 year)” and said that D had agreed to change the period of the labor contract as above, and there was no evidence to deem that the Intervenor consented to the change of the period of the labor contract. Thus, the period of the labor contract between the Plaintiff Company and the Intervenor is one year.

Therefore, since the term of the labor contract was not terminated at the time of notification of the termination of the labor contract in this case, the notification of the termination of the labor contract in this case unilaterally notified by the Plaintiff company constitutes dismissal.