1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all the plaintiffs.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a school juristic person that employs 6,00 full-time workers and operates the Korea University, etc.

B. In September 2005, Plaintiff A entered into a commission contract with an intervenor (part-time lecturer) and entered into a commission contract every semester after having taken into account the commission contract with the scambus Cology of the university, which is called “D,” and entered into the commission contract with the commission instructor around March 2012. The above commission contract entered into the commission contract with the commission instructor from March 1, 2012 to August 31, 2012, stating that “Plaintiff A shall be automatically dismissed simultaneously with the expiration of the commission period.”

Plaintiff

A, around August 2012, entered into a commission contract with an intervenor (hereinafter “instant contract”), and drafted a commission instructor appointment contract. The said commission contract states that the commission period is entered from August 27, 2012 to February 28, 2013, and that “Plaintiff A shall be automatically dismissed at the expiration of the commission period.”

After the expiration of the contract period of this case, the intervenor did not conclude a commission contract again with the plaintiff A.

C. On May 2, 2011, Plaintiff A established Plaintiff B Trade Union (hereinafter “Plaintiff Union”) and is currently the representative of Plaintiff Union.

Plaintiff

On May 21, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the termination of the contractual relationship with the Intervenor after the expiration of the contract term of the instant case constitutes unfair dismissal. The dismissal of the Intervenor constitutes unfair labor practices on the ground of Plaintiff A’s trade union activities, and refusal or neglect of collective bargaining with the Plaintiff’s union without justifiable grounds constitutes unfair labor practices. The Intervenor’s dismissal of the Plaintiff constitutes unfair labor practices, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on May 21, 2013.