1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation established by investing in the D City to implement policy projects for the promotion of DNA culture and arts, which is comprised of the Dsis choir, Dsis choir, Dsische, and Dsis and girls choirs choirs.

The Intervenor entered into a commission contract with the Plaintiff from the same date to December 31, 2017 on August 29, 2017 as non-permanent members of the DNA choir, and entered into a contract for commission with the Plaintiff from the same date to December 31, 2017. On January 1, 2018, the Intervenor entered into a contract for commission with the same date from the same date to December 30, 2018.

B. On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff conducted a regular rating in 2018 for non-permanent members, including the Intervenor. The Intervenor’s rating point was 69.5.

On November 15, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the termination of the commission contract as of December 30, 2018, and did not conclude a re-commission contract with the Intervenor.

(hereinafter “this case’s termination of employment”). C.

The Intervenor asserted that the termination of the labor relationship of this case constitutes unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On April 9, 2019, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “The Intervenor’s request for remedy is without reasonable grounds to refuse the renewal of an employment contract against the Intervenor by applying the guidelines for the operation of non-permanent members of the Dasi choir (hereinafter “non-permanent members”) under the Rules of Employment without consent of a majority of workers, even though the Plaintiff recognized the Intervenor’s right to renew the employment contract, and the Plaintiff changed unfavorable matters relating to the re-commissioning of workers.”

(E) d.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, on July 16, 2019, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry court.

(C) (hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [Ground for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul.