1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for the addition to the judgment of the new argument made by the plaintiff at the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2) and the addition of the judgment of the new argument made by the plaintiff at the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2)

2.Nos. 4, 1, added or dried, shall be as follows:

2) The following is added to Gap evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 4-7, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 15, and Eul evidence 1, 2, and 15, and the testimony of the witness witness C of the court of first instance as of June 14, 2017 at the meeting of the National Labor Relations Commission to the effect that "the plaintiff shall be deemed to work until the end of the year and signed". The plaintiff seems to have been well aware of the fact that the term of the contract of this case was until December 30, 2016 at the time of entering into the labor contract of this case.

E) The Intervenor, in addition to the Plaintiff, prepares a written employment contract with the employees for whom the period of employment has not been two years, on a yearly basis, and the content thereof are the same as the written employment contract prepared by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. On the other hand, the Intervenor prepared a written employment contract with the employees for whom the period of employment has passed two years, stating that the term of employment is “this contract shall be an employment contract with no fixed period of time from January 1 of each year,” and that the term of the employment contract is “this contract shall be an employment contract with no fixed period of time,” and that separate provisions on the term of the annual salary are different from the written employment contract made between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor (the Plaintiff is not the Intervenor’s employee, and it is argued that the Intervenor falsely prepares a written employment contract with the E and F employment contract made at the time of the Intervenor’s employment. However, even if D is excluded, it is submitted