1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport.

1. The grounds alleged by the intervenor in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the contents alleged in the court of first instance while the intervenor appealeds the court of first instance, and the facts established and determined in the court of first instance and the whole purport of evidence and arguments submitted to this court are recognized as legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplement of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this court cites it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

2. On the 6th page of the judgment of the court of first instance in the same part, the term “Plaintiff Company” in the last sentence shall be deemed to read “ Intervenor Company.”

3. In light of the following circumstances based on the first instance court’s reasoning in supplement, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s evaluation of the regular conversion based on the ground of rejection of renewal against the Plaintiff was conducted fairly based on objective and accurate data.

Therefore, it is unfair that the intervenor refuses to renew the labor contract to the plaintiff due to the lack of objectivity and fairness.

(1) A participant company shall evaluate the personality, work ability, attitude of work, degree of organizational adaptation, degree of contribution (faithfulness), etc. at the time of evaluation of conversion of contract-based workers into regular positions, and if the average point is not more than 70 points, it shall be determined as a failure of evaluation.

However, in the evaluation of the full-time conversion of the intervenor company to the plaintiff, the intervenor company granted 60 points to all items uniformly.

It is doubtful that the plaintiff received the lowest score on all items that can be assessed in a variety of evaluations because there is a room for discussion, and there is a doubt as to whether evaluators have properly assessed each evaluation item on the basis of objective data.

(2) The plaintiff shall make a non-stop.