1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. An intervenor entered into an employment contract on a fixed-term basis with the term of the employment contract fixed from March 1, 2015 to August 31, 2015, and the term of the employment contract fixed from August 27, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant employment contract”), respectively, with the term of the employment contract fixed from September 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016 ( collectively referred to as “the term of the employment contract in this case”), as a member of the Chungcheongnam-si branch, which is affiliated with the Hanam-si branch, which is established and operated by the Plaintiff, as a member of the Hanam-si branch, and was notified by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant notification”). On February 29, 2016, the intervenor was notified by the Plaintiff of the termination of the employment contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant notification”).

B. On May 16, 2016, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul District Court Decision 2016Hau203/Ma26).

On July 7, 2016, the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy against unfair dismissal and dismissed the application for remedy against unfair labor practices on the ground that “the Intervenor’s legitimate expectation of renewal of the labor contract is recognized, and there is no reasonable ground for the instant notification, and the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal, but it does not constitute unfair labor practices.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

On August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant initial inquiry court, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission (Central 2016 Deputy 881), and on December 7, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for reexamination on the ground that, even if the Intervenor was employed as a part-time teacher on March 1, 2016 after the instant notice, this constitutes an employment contract separate from the instant employment contract, and thus, the Intervenor’s remedy benefits are recognized. Moreover, the Intervenor’s legitimate expectation right to the renewal of the employment contract is recognized, and the instant notice constitutes an unfair dismissal.”