The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of lawsuit, including the part arising from the participation in the lawsuit, shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that is established on May 6, 201 and employs approximately fifty full-time workers and operates a facility security service business, etc.

On May 30, 2013, the Intervenor joining the Plaintiff and served as the manager in charge of managing B Apartment-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and the term of the contract were determined from May 30, 2014 to June 30, 2015, and the management office of the instant apartment was to serve as the manager in charge of managing the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

B. On May 30, 2015, on June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the term of the instant employment contract is terminated (hereinafter “Notice of the termination of the instant employment contract”).

C. On August 5, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the notification of the expiration of the instant labor contract constituted unfair dismissal.

On October 1, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy to the effect that “A refusal to renew the instant labor contract without any reasonable reason despite the recognition of the right to renew the instant labor contract to the Intervenor constitutes an unfair dismissal.”

On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission and filed an application for review seeking the revocation of the determination of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.

On February 1, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the above request for reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant employment contract automatically terminates when the contract term expires in the instant employment contract, and that the Intervenor set the retirement age on August 24, 2015.