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 an incorporated foundation established by C&C with the contribution of property, which employs approximately three hundred regular workers and carries out the excavation and preservation of cultural heritage.

B. On April 3, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a fixed-term employment contract with the Intervenor, and thereafter, concluded a fixed-term employment contract with the Intervenor and the Plaintiff, setting the shorter period of one month according to the project period, and the long period of 12 months as “members” or “project contract workers.”

C. D entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor on March 1, 2007 with no fixed term of time. D

The Plaintiff asserted on June 12, 2017 that, even though the Plaintiff was engaged in the same or similar work as the comparable workers D, the Plaintiff applied for correction of discriminatory treatment to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the Plaintiff’s payment of fixed meal service costs, transportation expenses, welfare points, bonuses, bonuses, and piece rates to D is a discriminatory treatment on the ground that it is a fixed-term worker.

However, on September 18, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that “D is not an employee engaged in the same or similar business as the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have treated the Plaintiff as a fixed-term worker on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a discriminatory treatment.”

Gyeonggi 2017 d.e.

On October 25, 2017, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, on December 28, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's request for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.

(Central 2017 Discrimination31, hereinafter “instant decision on review”). / [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and D are all Article 7(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Protection and Inspection of Buried Cultural Heritage.