1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. On March 10, 1994, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor by setting the contract period as “from March 10, 1994 to March 9, 195,” and concluded the employment contract at each time when the contract period expires, and on December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract by setting the contract period as “from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016.”

On September 9, 2016, the Intervenor issued a summary order of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff as a crime of taking property in breach of trust (hereinafter “instant disciplinary cause”), and notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would dismiss the Plaintiff as of September 23, 2016, based on Article 39 (Disciplinary Action) of the Intervenor’s Personnel Regulations, Articles 9 (Standards for Disciplinary Action), 10 (Guidelines for Disciplinary Punishment), and 14 (Effect of Disciplinary Action) of the Intervenor’s Personnel Regulations (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

The Plaintiff asserted that the dismissal of this case constitutes unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (M), but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on December 13, 2016.

On March 29, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of reexamination that the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination is dismissed (hereinafter “instant decision of reexamination”) on the ground that the legitimacy of the grounds for disciplinary action is recognized and the disciplinary action is appropriate.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 2, Eul's evidence 2 (the additional evidence includes the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The intervenor's defense prior to the merits and the judgment thereon

A. The summary of the Intervenor’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is a fixed-term worker pursuant to Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”) and Article 3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-Term Workers Act, and there is no legitimate expectation that the labor contract will be renewed.