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. An intervenor is a company established on May 9, 191 for the purpose of passenger transport business and engaged in agricultural and fishing village bus transport business by ordinarily employing 57 workers. The Plaintiff is a bus operator who entered into a one-year employment contract with an intervenor from March 11, 2016 to March 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant employment contract”).

B. On March 10, 2017, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the instant labor contract was terminated due to the expiration of the period of validity.

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

On March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2017da37 on the ground that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. However, on May 11, 2017, the former North Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not entitled to renew the application.”

On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking cancellation of the said initial trial tribunal. On August 17, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination (hereinafter “instant new trial ruling”) on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s legitimate expectation right to convert into regular positions,” and even if the Plaintiff acknowledged the Plaintiff’s legitimate expectation right to convert into regular positions or the right to expect renewal of the labor contract, the Plaintiff did not take appropriate measures after reducing the risk of fire on June 21, 2016, and eventually causes the accident involving the vehicle dispatch, and ② the Plaintiff’s occurrence frequency of traffic accidents compared to other employees, and the number of transport employees’ violations are high.”

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1.