1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a medical corporation that employs approximately 290 full-time workers and operates a B mental hospital, C hospital, etc., and the Intervenor joined the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013 and worked as a guardian at the B mental hospital.

B. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the expiration of the employment contract that “the Plaintiff would not inform the Intervenor of his retirement on the next day after the expiration of the employment contract on April 30, 2015.”

(hereinafter “Notification of this case”)

C. On April 30, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the instant notice was an unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice, and filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 24, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission only accepted an application for remedy against unfair dismissal, deeming that the instant notice falls under unfair dismissal, but does not fall under unfair labor practice.

On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on December 7, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the part of the decision made by the reexamination of this case was legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was fixed and terminated on April 30, 2015, and the Intervenor’s right to renew the labor contract was not recognized. Even if the right to renew the labor contract is recognized, there are justifiable grounds for refusing to renew the labor contract to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s attitude of work is not unfaithful and qualities are serious defects.

B. On November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff publicly announced that he/she would employ a full-time guardian who will work at a B mental hospital on the Internet recruitment site. 2) The Intervenor reported the above employment announcement and entered the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013, and the Plaintiff and the Intervenor did not prepare a separate employment contract.

3. 2 years of service.