1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The reasons and contents of the Review Decision are about 600 full-time workers, and the Plaintiff is a corporation engaging in printing and distributing books.

On April 17, 2017, the intervenor joined the plaintiff and served in the personnel planning division of the HR Strategy Department.

On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor on April 17, 2018 that the Plaintiff will not renew the contract after the expiration of the term of the labor contract.

(hereinafter “instant notification”). On May 11, 2018, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that “the instant dismissal is unjust.”

On July 9, 2018, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “The Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the labor contract without reasonable grounds is unjust.”

On August 9, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On November 15, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's application for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry tribunal.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination” / [based on recognition] . The Plaintiff’s summary of the assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant decision on reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of reexamination of this case is not recognized.

The phrase "may be converted to a regular position" in the employment notice is merely a possibility of conversion to a regular position according to the case, and the phrase "Renewal of an employment contract" in the employment contract provides for the method of determining an annual salary in the case of renewal of an employment contract.

The Plaintiff does not have renewed an employment contract with respect to the Intervenor, and the rules of employment clearly state as the ground for retirement the “where the employment period of the employee employed has expired by setting the period of time.”

The individual evaluation conducted with respect to the intervenor in 2017 is being implemented in the same manner as not only contract-based workers but also regular workers.