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. 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 general waste collection and transportation business. An intervenor is a person who was employed by the Plaintiff on August 18, 2017 and worked as a street cleaners on October 11, 2017 while 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 division notified the intervenors under medical treatment as above, that “an employee contract is terminated on October 17, 2017, and it is difficult to renew the contract after the termination of 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 period, and the Intervenor, contrary to the recognition of the legitimate right to renew the contract, has no reasonable grounds for rejection of the Plaintiff’s refusal of the contract.”

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 is 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”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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