1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City B-gu (hereinafter “B-gu”) is the Gu (autonomous Gu) which is a local government established pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Local Autonomy Act, and the defendant assistant intervenor (hereinafter “participating”) is the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City B-gu.

The plaintiff is a person who has been employed as a fixed-term worker in B from June 1, 2016 to B.

B. A fixed-term employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was concluded at least four times, and the Plaintiff did not enter into an employment contract with the Intervenor on or after July 31, 2017, which was the termination date of the fixed-term employment contract.

C. On October 20, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “The Plaintiff has a legitimate right to renew the labor contract, and thus the Intervenor’s termination of the labor contract relationship with the Plaintiff on July 31, 2017 constitutes an unfair dismissal.”

On December 14, 2017, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff shall not be granted the right to renew the labor contract.”

On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed to this and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On March 20, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a regular and continuous work in B-gu, and the Plaintiff has renewed an employment contract with the Intervenor several times, and the Intervenor expressed his/her intent to convert the Plaintiff into a regular position.

Therefore, the plaintiff has a legitimate right to renew the employment contract, and reasonable grounds are that the intervenor refuses to renew the employment contract.