1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is due to the participation.

The court's explanation of this part of the decision on reexamination is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part of the decision is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination cannot be deemed as an employee who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time (hereinafter “inorganic contract worker”) on the following grounds, and the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated upon the expiration of the period of April 18, 2013, and the Plaintiff did not dismiss the Intervenor.

In order to become an employee without a fixed period of time pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Act, a fixed-term employee shall be employed for more than two consecutive years. However, since the Plaintiff entered into a new employment contract with the intervenor on April 28, 2012 after the employment contract with the intervenor was terminated as of April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff continued to use the intervenor for more than two consecutive years, the Intervenor shall not be deemed an inorganic employee.

The intervenor, as a source of the Gyeong Training Institute, was in charge of the management of credits and special lectures in the field of light training, the delivery of worships, the collection of collection of books, and student counseling. The intervenor obtained a doctor's degree in the field of new learning in only four months after concluding the labor contract with the plaintiff, which is directly related to the affairs of the intervenor.

Therefore, there is no room for applying Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Workers Act to intervenors, since there is an exception to the restriction on the period of use of fixed-term workers under Article 4(1)5 of the Fixed-term Workers Act and Article 3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-term Workers Act.

The purpose of legislation of Article 4 (2) of the Fixed-term Act is to protect the workers more strongly by preventing the employment contract from being made by the law despite the necessity of continuous employment of the workers.

However, the plaintiff will continue to serve the intervenor.