1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff’s new argument in the appellate court under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article

(In full view of all the allegations by the plaintiff and the evidence additionally submitted to this court, the first instance judgment is reasonable). 2. Judgment on the new argument in the appellate court

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the dismissal of the instant case was unfair, the Plaintiff did not have employed or converted the Intervenor as a regular employee, and was forged or fabricated in the Intervenor’s regular employment contract. As the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor as to the Intervenor, who is a contractual worker, from August 3, 2015 to August 3, 2017, as the term of the labor contract expires, the Intervenor’s employment contract was terminated and the intention not to renew the labor contract was notified, the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed as there is no interest in legal action.

B. 1) Whether the contract of this case is terminated or not, in a case where it is recognized that the seal affixed to the person under whose name the document was written in the relevant legal doctrine document was affixed was affixed with the seal, barring special circumstances, it is presumed that the document was signed and sealed by the person under whose name the document was written, i.e., the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established pursuant to Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, it is presumed that the document was written against the intent of the person under whose name the document was written or without the intention of the person under whose name the document was written, the claimant must actively prove it, and the probative value of evidence proving the facts of this defense is insufficient by itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da82158, Nov. 13, 2008). If the authenticity of the disposal document is acknowledged, the