1. On August 2, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff is an incorporated association established for the purpose of promoting economic and social relations between the European Union and the Republic of Korea, and runs a consortium and other advertising service business by ordinarily employing approximately 15 workers at the building C in Jung-gu Seoul and the fifth floor with its principal office.

B. On January 18, 2016, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) concluded an employment contract with the Plaintiff on January 18, 2016, and (hereinafter “the instant employment contract” was entered into by “the instant employment contract,” and served as an agent for the financial management support division.

C. On January 18, 2017, the Plaintiff verbally notified the Intervenor of the termination of the instant employment contract due to the expiration of the contract period.

(hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

On March 10, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. However, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application on May 4, 2017 on the ground that “the Intervenor’s period is determined as a worker, and the instant employment contract was terminated upon the expiration of the contract term.”

E. On May 29, 2017, the Intervenor appealed and filed a petition for review on May 29, 2017. On August 2, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission determined that “this case’s labor contract constitutes a contract with a fixed period of time, but the Intervenor’s renewal right is recognized in view of the ordinary continuity of duties and the practices of renewal of the contract, etc., and the Plaintiff refused the renewal of the instant labor contract without reasonable grounds, and thus, the instant notice constitutes an unfair dismissal.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant decision on retrial should be revoked as it is unlawful for the following reasons.