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. On January 2, 2017, the Intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and concluded the employment contract with the Plaintiff, and from the same day, the employment relationship was terminated on October 31, 2017 due to the expiration of the contract term stipulated in the said employment contract with the fixed-term worker who worked as dental sanitarian at the Goyang-si Public Health Center B (hereinafter “instant public health center”).

B. Meanwhile, on July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff established a “plan for the assessment of the department of workers subject to conversion assessment” in accordance with the government’s “Guidelines for the Conversion of Non-regular Workers in the Public Sector”, and decided to convert a part-time worker employed in an affiliated agency into an inorganic contract position through a department assessment procedure, and accordingly, conducted an interview on November 23, 2017 for the Intervenor.

C. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff publicly announced 242 inorganic contract workers among 306 fixed-term workers subject to evaluation, but did not include the Intervenor.

On December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors of the fact that they failed by e-mail and the notice of the procedure for filing an objection.

On January 29, 2018, an intervenor filed an application with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission for remedy against the expiration of the unfair contract (No. 2018da216). On March 30, 2018, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application and ordered remedy on the ground that “The Intervenor’s assessment against the Intervenor was not conducted objectively and fairly, such as the Intervenor’s right to expectation conversion is recognized in light of the Plaintiff’s process of promoting the conversion of indefinite contract positions, and the Intervenor’s failure to notify the Plaintiff of the reasons and points of the failure.”

E. On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on May 10, 2018 (Central Ministry of Labor Decision 2018Du484), but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for reexamination

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 8 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.