1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall include costs resulting from the participation.

An intervenor in the process of the decision on reexamination is a public corporation that carries out the business of preserving, collecting, and purchasing non-performing loans, acquiring bonds and securities issued by a special purpose company, etc. using 1,100 full-time workers, and the plaintiffs are those who enter the intervenor on January 8, 2013 and carried out the business of operating, maintaining, and repairing electronic

On January 7, 2015, the Intervenor terminated the labor contract relationship with the Plaintiff on the grounds that the contract term expires.

(hereinafter “instant termination of employment relationship”). On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission to the effect that the termination of the instant employment relationship constitutes unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices. On March 30, 2015, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy against unfair dismissal by the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Intervenor’s refusal to convert the Plaintiffs to regular workers without reasonable grounds constitutes unfair dismissal, and there is no evidence to prove that the Intervenor refused to convert to regular workers on the ground of the Plaintiffs’ trade union activities.

On May 11, 2015, and May 14, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as to the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal, respectively. On August 4, 2015, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Intervenor’s refusal to convert to regular positions was reasonable, and dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry tribunal.

(이하 ‘이 사건 재심판정’이라 한다). [인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 2호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 이 사건 재심판정의 적법 여부 원고들의 주장 원고 A은 2012. 10. 4.부터, 원고 B은 2010. 11. 3.부터 참가인과 도급계약을 체결한 동양네트웍스 주식회사(동양시스템즈 주식회사의 사명이 동양네트웍스 주식회사로 변경되었으므로, 이하 위 두 회사를 통틀어 ‘동양네트웍스’라 한다) 또는...