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 intervenor is a local government that performs the overall administrative affairs in the region in which the intervenor is in charge, and the plaintiff is a fixed-term worker in charge of the computerized processing of illegal stopping and stopping of the intervenor in the traffic economy and the fine for negligence as follows

B. On December 6, 2012, an intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff during the contract period from December 6, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “the primary labor contract”); and on December 1, 2012, the Intervenor again entered into a labor contract with the term of the contract from January 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013 (hereinafter “the secondary labor contract”).

C. On October 1, 2013, the intervenor employed C as a fixed-term worker to work in the Transport Economy Department, and D, who is a public official in charge of traffic economy and illegal stopping control, had C take over the affairs in charge of C. The relation with which C used a computer, which was not well-grounded in the electronic data processing of illegal stopping and stopping, the plaintiff was able to take over the affairs in charge of C, and even after the termination of the secondary employment contract, the plaintiff was able to take over the traffic economy and office of the large-scale participant every ten times after the termination of the secondary employment contract.

On January 13, 2014, an intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff from January 13, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “third-party labor contract”) with the term of the contract from January 13, 2014, and the period between the period of the second labor contract and the period of the third labor contract (hereinafter “instant blank period”).

E. The Intervenor’s chief of the traffic economy division notified the Plaintiff that it is impossible for the Intervenor to renew the contract two months before the termination of the third labor contract, and the Intervenor treated the third labor contract with the Plaintiff as terminated on December 31, 2014.

hereinafter referred to as "the termination of the employment relationship of this case"

(f) On January 2, 2015, the Plaintiff included the Plaintiff’s period of absence in the period of continuous work as Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2015, Dec. 3, 2015.