1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case being cited or added by the following parts, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. The part 1) of the first instance judgment Nos. 7 and 6 and 7 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance stated that "the intervenor received retirement allowances from the plaintiff at the time of retirement, but it appears that the plaintiff voluntarily paid it to the superior position, regardless of the intervenor's intention," "it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff was paid retirement allowances to the plaintiff at the time of retirement, but it is reasonable to deem that the above retirement allowances were paid to the intervenor at the time of retirement, or that there was an intention to terminate the labor relationship with the intervenor at the time of retirement," and that "the possibility of expectation for the extension and re-contract has existed. 2)" of the first instance judgment Nos. 8, 4 and 5 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court, "It seems reasonable to have been able to expect the extension and re-contract."

B. The part of the additional determination (as to the Plaintiff’s additional assertion and the motion for resumption of pleadings) asserted that the Plaintiff had a substantial interview with the Intervenor on November 20, 2014, but the Plaintiff only applied for and passed an interview with the Intervenor, and only the Intervenor was passed through an open recruitment procedure, and the previous employees including the Intervenor were employed once again. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff had an interview with the content of the materials to be submitted, even if the interview was conducted, it is difficult to deem that the open recruitment of the Intervenor was not a formal procedure.

Therefore, we cannot accept all of the plaintiff's assertion and the application for resumption of argument to prove it.

3. Conclusion.