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 Plaintiff is a company that is established on July 27, 1992 and ordinarily employs about 40 workers and engages in the business of collecting and transporting general wastes. An intervenor is a person who was employed by the Plaintiff on August 18, 2017 and worked as a street cleaner on October 11, 2017 and was receiving medical treatment by suffering from injury around October 10, 2017 during night work.

B. On October 16, 2017, the head of the Plaintiff’s Department C notified the intervenors under medical treatment that “an employee contract is terminated on October 17, 2017, and later it is difficult to renew the contract.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff taken measures to terminate the employment contract with the Intervenor around October 18, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant measure”). C.

On January 12, 2018, an intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (2018da105). On March 12, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) rendered a decision to recognize the rejection of the instant measure as unfair dismissal on the ground that “The instant measure was rejected with respect to the Intervenor, who is an employee with a period of one month or longer during the contract term, and the Intervenor is entitled to the legitimate renewal right, whereas the refusal of the Plaintiff’s re-contract was without reasonable grounds.”

On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on April 13, 2018, on the ground that it constitutes an unfair dismissal on the ground that it constitutes an unfair dismissal on the ground that “the instant measure was dismissed for a participant during the period of three months, and the Plaintiff was dismissed without justifiable grounds, and the Plaintiff violated the Labor Standards Act’s provision on written notification of dismissal as well as the duty of dismissal.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful