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 Plaintiff is a corporation that employs approximately 300 full-time workers and engages in the import, distribution, and follow-up services of German automobile products.

B. On October 5, 2015, the Intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) and was employed by the R&D department as the test DNA in the R&D department.

C. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a notice of termination of the instant employment contract to the Intervenor on April 1, 2016, on the grounds that the Intervenor’s probation period expires, and that it is deemed difficult to continue to work as a result of a comprehensive evaluation of the Intervenor’s work performance ability, work attitude, communication, reliability, etc. during the probation period, and that the instant employment contract is terminated at the expiration of the probation period. The Intervenor received the said notice on April 4, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant refusal of principal employment”). D.

On April 20, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on April 20, 2016, asserting that the refusal of this case’s employment was unfair, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, on June 15, 2016, accepted the Plaintiff’s application for remedy based on the determination that the instant employment contract constitutes a contract for the commencement of employment on June 15, 2016, on

E. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on July 27, 2016, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that, although the instant employment contract on October 24, 2016 falls under a contract for commencement, there is no reasonable ground to extend the period of three months additionally, and even if there are reasonable grounds, it is difficult to deem that there exists objective and reasonable grounds for the refusal of this case’s employment.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment for reexamination”) 【Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and 2, and 1, and 1, respectively, the purport of the entire pleadings.