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. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was in charge of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building (hereinafter “instant building”) from August 1, 2016, and entered into a management service contract for the instant building on August 8, 2016, when the terms and conditions of the contract with the contractor, the urban residential housing company, and the contract were frightened. The Plaintiff did not comply with the demand for the preparation of the employment contract on August 11, 2016, but did not comply with the demand for the preparation of the employment contract to the Intervenor, who was the head of the management office, but was refused to prepare the second employment contract on August 29, 2016. As such, it cannot be said that the employment contract was concluded implicitly between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor and the previous manager, the same as the terms and conditions of the employment contract set forth in the three-dimensional M&C Co. (hereinafter “C”).

B. In a situation where the Intervenor’s unfair rejection of the Intervenor’s request for the conclusion of the labor contract was not concluded, the Plaintiff demanded that the Intervenor conclude several labor contracts on several occasions. However, the Intervenor unfairly rejected the Intervenor’s complaint with respect to the labor conditions without reasonable grounds.

C. Even if the legitimacy of the instant refusal of employment is recognized to be an implied employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the reason for revoking employment is the reason for revoking employment in the event that the Plaintiff failed to submit the employment documents within 15 days under the Plaintiff’s rules of employment, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s annual leave use for the first day constitutes two-day leave, and the annual leave use for the first day constitutes only one day, which is available at the time of applying for leave, and thus, the Intervenor was absent from office without permission. Thus, the instant refusal of employment is justifiable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. There is no dispute over the determination of whether an implied labor contract was concluded, according to the following: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5; and the purport of the part of the testimony and arguments of the witness C of the first instance trial, and