1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The intervenor is a corporation established under the Act on the Establishment, Operation and Fostering of Government-Funded Research Institutes, Etc. for the purpose of establishing external economic strategies and developing policies;

On May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract-based researcher’s employment contract (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) with the Intervenor for a fixed period of one year (from May 26, 2015 to May 25, 2016) and worked as a contractual researcher at the C Team as a contractual researcher.

B. On April 26, 2016, the Intervenor’s personnel committee deliberated on whether to renew the instant employment contract and decided to renew the instant employment contract, but to propose caution measures against the Plaintiff’s attitude to work at the C Team.

The Intervenor renewed the instant labor contract by setting the period of labor as one year (from May 26, 2016 to May 25, 2017).

C. On April 10, 2017, the Intervenor’s personnel committee deliberated on whether to renew the instant employment contract and decided not to renew the instant employment contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s unfaithful job attitude, etc.

The intervenor, on the 19th day of the same month, publicly notified the list of persons subject to renewal of the labor contract to the Selfnet, but did not include the plaintiff in the above list.

As of May 25, 2017, the instant employment contract was terminated.

(hereinafter “Termination of the instant employment contract”) D.

On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the termination of the instant employment contract constitutes unfair dismissal and applied for remedy to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission.

However, on July 18, 2017, the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for remedy on the ground that “The Plaintiff has the right to expect the renewal of the instant employment contract upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, but there is a justifiable reason to refuse the renewal of the instant employment contract.”

(J) Chungcheongnam-Nam 2017, 246). e.

On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission.