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.

The party status intervenor in the process of the instant decision was established on September 9, 199 and employs 3,100 full-time workers and operates film business, etc. The Plaintiff entered the Intervenor on June 1, 2012 and was in charge of the sales of Handphones. The Plaintiff was a person who was in charge of accounting, etc. at the Red-gu Film Center from June 16, 2013.

The term of the Plaintiff’s employment contract is from June 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014 in each of the instant employment contracts (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) submitted by the Intervenor to the Intervenor, which was submitted by the Intervenor to the Intervenor. However, the Intervenor requested the Plaintiff to submit a resignation notice, which is the expiration date under the instant employment contract.

On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiff directly prepared a resignation document stating the date of resignation as of January 31, 2014 and submitted it to the intervenors. Upon acceptance by the Intervenor, the Plaintiff was dismissed on January 31, 2014.

(2) On March 27, 2014, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on May 21, 2014, by asserting that the instant retirement disposition was unfair and unfair. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on March 21, 2014.

On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on June 20, 2014. However, it is reasonable to view that the term of the Plaintiff’s labor contract from June 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014, “the Plaintiff’s labor contract period is from June 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014.” Since the Plaintiff did not have a legitimate right to expect re-contract, and the Plaintiff’s refusal of re-contract has reasonable grounds, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated on January 31, 201, and even if not, it is deemed that the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated on the above date pursuant to