1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to using the partial contents as set forth in paragraph (2) below, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be filled by the court of first instance shall be set forth in Chapters 4 and 12 through 19 of

Article 4(1) proviso of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22018, Feb. 4, 2010; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-Term Workers Act”) among the cases prescribed by Presidential Decree where “other reasonable grounds corresponding to subparagraphs 1 through 5 exist” under Article 4(1)6 of the Fixed-Term Workers Act.

Article 3(3)5 of the Korean Standard Vocational Classification (Notice of Statistics Korea, No. 2000-2) provides that "professionals" who fall under the category 1 occupation of the Korea Standard Vocational Classification (Notice of Statistics Korea, No. 2000-2), and fall under the category 25 percent higher of earned income of a person engaged in one occupation of the Korean Standard Vocational Classification, or Article 3(3)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Korean Standard Vocational Classification (Notice of Statistics Korea, No. 2007-3) provides that "professionals and employees engaged in two occupations of the Korean Standard Classification (Notice of Statistics Korea, No. 2007-3), which falls under the category 25 percent higher of earned income of a person engaged in two occupations of the Korean Standard Vocational Classification (Notice of Statistics Korea, No. 2000-2), and the retrial ruling of this case is erroneous in the determination that the Intervenor does not fall under the above exception (the third argument was made from No. 10 to No. 14, 500, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor as to the present evidence No. 201.