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. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a legal entity that employs approximately 199 full-time workers and carries on business, such as the Integrated Medical Center.

B. On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff was notified on November 7, 2016 that the labor contract entered into with the Plaintiff from the Intervenor is terminated as of December 7, 2016 (hereinafter “the notification of the expiration of the instant labor contract”) while the Plaintiff was employed as a pharmacist in the contract with the Gangwon-do Seocho Medical Center (hereinafter “the expiration of the instant labor contract”).

C. On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the notification of the expiration of the instant employment contract constituted an unfair dismissal against the Plaintiff.

On March 17, 2017, Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the above request for remedy. D.

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination seeking the revocation of the said determination with the National Labor Relations Commission. On June 7, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the said application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 10, and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From March 2015, the Plaintiff’s class was indicated as regular workers from the Plaintiff’s salary statement in March 2015, and the job description was also indicated as regular workers. According to Article 10 of the Intervenor’s personnel regulations, a pharmacist stipulates that a position employed is appointed as regular workers when the work performance is excellent through a three-month conditional period, and the Plaintiff’s duties are indispensable to the Intervenor’s regular work, and there is no objective reason for the Plaintiff to employ for a short period of time. In light of the following, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor were converted to regular workers or entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time.

B. Even if an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was based on a fixed period of time, the Intervenor expressed his employment contract with the Plaintiff on three occasions.