1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as described in paragraph (2) below; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of either a new trial or a second-emphasizing argument by the plaintiff in the trial pursuant to paragraph (3) below.

2. The height of the part 2, paragraph 11, “in the C Public Health Center” shall be considered as “after employment, after renewal of the contract at C Public Health Center on a one-year basis, such as the entry in the list of pages 9.”

Part 4, the proviso of Article 4 (1) shall be changed to "Article 4 (1) (5) (proviso)" in Part 7.

Part 4, Chapters 19 through 5 shall be improved as follows:

B. The labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor were renewed from August 6, 2008 to December 31, 2014. Among them, the period excluding the period during which the Defendant’s Intervenor was employed as a visiting movement room for the “integrated pre-integrated health management business” under the proviso of Article 4(1)5 of the Fixed-term Work Act and Article 3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2012), which does not fall under an exception to the restriction on the period of use of fixed-term workers (from August 6, 2008 to December 31, 2014) and the period during which the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the expiration of the term of employment as an employee under Article 24(2) of the Act, despite the expiration of the term of employment, the period of employment exceeds the pertinent period of employment.

3. The addition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The term “health promotion project” is a lump sum refund of the “house visit health promotion project before integration,” and the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a part of the “health promotion project.”