1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on February 28, 2013 against the Plaintiff is invalid.

2. The Defendant on March 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the appointment of clinical professors with the Defendant who operates the Health Promotion Center, setting the contract period of one year, and was engaged in the health examination of visitors, medical examination, inspection, etc. at the Health Promotion Center of C Hospital.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant during the contract period from March 1, 2004 to February 28, 2005, and thereafter the contract period from March 1, 2005 to February 28, 2008, from March 1, 2008 to February 28, 2011, and from March 1, 201 to February 28, 201, the appointment contract was renewed. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon renewal of the employment contract, drafted an employment contract after the commencement of the contract period and applied it retroactively from the commencement date of the contract period to February 28, 2013.

C. The key contents of the employment contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 1, 201 (hereinafter “instant appointment contract”) are as follows.

Article 2 (Period of Appointment Contract) (1) The term of appointment contract shall be from March 1, 201 to February 28, 2013.

(2) The plaintiff and the defendant may renew the contract upon mutual agreement at the time of termination of the contract.

③ When the Plaintiff wishes to retire during the contract period, he/she shall notify the Defendant at least two months prior to the desired date of retirement and obtain prior approval.

On February 19, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the term of appointment expires on February 28, 2013, and the same year.

3. On 14. Around 14.1, around 31,270,840 won was remitted as the Plaintiff’s account for reemployment consolation benefits.

E. On January 25, 2013, the Defendant’s written opinion on the re-contract against the Plaintiff on January 25, 2013 under the name of the Defendant’s director of the Health Department and the director of the Health Promotion Center is indicated as follows: (a) the opinions on re-contract are as follows: (b) the opinion on re-contract falls short of the qualities and capabilities pursued by the Health Department; (c) the unity with the Department of Health

F. The Defendant’s clinical Faculty Appointment Regulations (amended by May 2, 2012) (amended by May 2, 2012) are as follows.

4...