1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that ordinarily employs approximately 460 workers and engages in newspaper publishing business. The Intervenor entered into a labor contract on September 22, 2014 with a period of one year and joined the Plaintiff, and was in charge of newspaper sale and the management of the branch.

B. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff had the expiration of the period of work, and submitted to the original service station “A wishing to convert to regular workers” to the original service station, and the original service station submitted to the personnel department a written request for conversion to regular workers with respect to the Intervenor.

C. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) held a personnel committee to convert the Intervenor into a regular position; (b) decided to process the termination of the contract; and (c) notified the Intervenor on September 21, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

On December 28, 2015, the intervenor claimed that the notice of this case constitutes unfair dismissal and applied for remedy to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. On March 17, 2016, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission had the right to expect the conversion to regular workers. Since there was no reasonable ground for the plaintiff to refuse the conversion to regular workers, the notice of this case was deemed unfair dismissal and accepted the intervenor's application for remedy.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on April 28, 2016, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on July 14, 2016.

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

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract term of the contract-based employee is terminated is automatically dismissed, and the contract term of the contract-based employee is not separately stipulated in the contract-based employee’s re-contract, and there is no agreement on extension of the contract term with the Intervenor. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract term of the contract is extended after 2012.