1. On January 7, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “National Labor Relations Commission”) took part in the 2013rd century between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant.

1. On January 4, 201, 100 to December 31, 2011, the procedure number of the decision on reexamination is the non-party work place under a contract, and the water supply and sewerage of the Intervenor “B” regional self-sufficiency center in the Jeonnam-do on December 31, 201, and the air supply and sewerage of the Intervenor on August 15, 201 to December 31, 201, when the Intervenor was selected on August 15, 201, to December 31, 2011, and the indoor swimming pool 320s from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the details of work of the Intervenor’s construction and indoor swimming pool 4203 to the Intervenor’s construction and indoor swimming pool 1, 2013 to August 13, 2013 are substantially the same.

A. The Intervenor Intervenor Naju-si (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) concluded a labor contract with the Intervenor’s water supply and drainage division (hereinafter “water supply and drainage division”) from January 4, 201 to August 15, 201, and concluded a labor contract with the Intervenor from August 15, 201, including the Intervenor’s construction and indoor swimming pool (hereinafter “in-house swimming pool”).

B. On June 28, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on August 13, 2013 that the term of the labor contract expires.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). (c)

On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the former Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Plaintiff’s work as an intervenor and the Intervenor’s notification was unfair if it was converted to an indefinite contract worker from January 4, 2010 to August 13, 2013.

On October 7, 2013, the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission established an implied labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor from January 4, 2010. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was converted into an indefinite contract employee on January 4, 2012, and the Intervenor’s termination of the labor relationship on the ground that the termination of the period of validity constitutes unfair dismissal.