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 joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that is engaged in multi-family housing management business, etc.

On March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor and served as the management team leader of the D Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The Plaintiff and the Intervenor stated that the term of the employment contract was “from March 26, 2019 to May 25, 2019” in the employment contract signed on March 26, 2019 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”). B. The Intervenor notified the Plaintiff in writing that “the term of the employment contract concluded on March 26, 2019 shall expire on May 25, 2019,” and that “the term of the employment contract concluded on May 26, 2019 shall expire on May 25, 2019.”

C. The Plaintiff asserted that the Intervenor’s termination of labor relations constitutes unfair dismissal, and applied for remedy to the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on October 28, 2019, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff and the Intervenor entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time, and the Plaintiff did not constitute dismissal because the employment relationship is terminated upon the expiration of the contract period as the right to renew the employment contract is not recognized.”

(E) d.

On January 29, 2020, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the ground that the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

(C) [Ground for recognition] / [Ground for recognition] A, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments No. 1

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

A. The contract term stipulated in the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a form of the contract term, and thus, the Intervenor’s refusal to conclude a renewal contract without justifiable grounds constitutes an unfair dismissal.

Even if the contract term set by the plaintiff and the intervenor is not formal, the plaintiff is an electrical engineer and the plaintiff.