1. On September 24, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a central order between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, 2015.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was established on September 1, 1989 and operated a golf club business with 49 regular workers, and the Plaintiffs joined the Intervenor on October 1, 201 and served as a member of the COS management team.

The duration of the labor contract with the plaintiffs on January 5, 2015 is the same year to the plaintiffs.

2. The notice was given 28. Effective

(2) On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the termination of the instant employment contract constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and that the Plaintiff filed an application against the Intervenor for remedy against the Intervenor. On May 11, 2015, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s employment contract constitutes an employment contract with a fixed period of time, and the termination of the employment contract is due to the expiration of the period of time, and thus, the termination of the instant employment contract does not constitute dismissal, and the Intervenor’s refusal to conclude the renewal contract does not constitute unfair labor practices.”

On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on June 16, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission concluded the labor contract between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor on September 24, 2015, which constitutes a fixed-term employment contract. The labor contract between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor except Plaintiff D is converted into a non-fixed-term employment contract as of March 1, 2014, when the contract renewal period exceeds the fixed-term employment period. However, the Plaintiffs concluded a labor contract between the Intervenor and the Intervenor on March 1, 2014, when the retirement age limit was set at one year, and the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor was terminated due to the expiration of the term of the labor contract stipulated in the above labor contract. Thus, the termination of the instant employment contract is a dismissal.