1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is one of the agencies of the medical corporation Seoul National University Hospital, but has no legal personality, but a separate identification number is given by the National Tax Service to carry out the State’s dementia management program.

An intervenor shall employ 50 regular workers.

On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with an intervenor with a term of one year, and served as a general counselor. On January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract again between the intervenor and the intervenor with the term of contract from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014.

On December 2014, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on December 31, 2014 that the labor contract with the Intervenor was terminated as the expiration date of the above labor contract.

On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that the above notice of termination of the labor relationship constitutes unfair dismissal by infringing the Plaintiff’s right to expect renewal of the labor contract, and the written decision of review (Evidence A A No. 1) issued by the National Labor Relations Commission on January 9, 2015 is indicated as January 9, 2015, but the written decision of initial trial (Evidence B B B and 1) of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission is written as of January 19, 2015.

On March 26, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy, deeming that the Plaintiff did not have the right to expect renewal of the labor contract.

On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the said initial inquiry tribunal, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground on June 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire argument as to the validity of the ruling of the retrial of this case, the plaintiff's assertion and the intervenor are renewed once, and the contract is concluded by the intervenor's evaluation procedure for the re-contract.