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. An intervenor is a school foundation that was established on April 14, 1964 and operates the original state campus, etc. at the school of a household.

The plaintiff is a person born B.

B. Around March 1, 2013, the Intervenor employed the Plaintiff as a staff member of the Team in the main campus C Team in the main campus and had the Plaintiff perform the duties of scambling between the Intervenor and the Plaintiff. A labor contract was concluded between March 1, 2013 and February 28, 2014 during the contract period.

Around March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor concluded a labor contract with the terms of the contract from March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015.

C. On January 19, 2015, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s term of labor contract expires on February 28, 2015.

On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”) by asserting that “the intervenor’s act that terminated the Plaintiff’s employment contract against the Plaintiff as of February 28, 2015 without converting the Plaintiff into an inorganic contract position constitutes unfair dismissal.” On May 7, 2015, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”) decided that “the Intervenor has the legitimate right to expect the conversion into an inorganic contract position, and there is no reasonable ground to refuse the conversion” with the judgment that “the Intervenor recognized the termination of the employment contract as of February 28, 2015 as unfair dismissal, and ordered the Intervenor to be reinstated, etc. of the Plaintiff.” D.

On June 18, 2015, an intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as to 2015da584 on June 18, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission decided on September 9, 2015, that “the Plaintiff has the right to expect the conversion of indefinite-term position, but the Intervenor has reasonable grounds to refuse the conversion,” and revoked the above initial inquiry court and rendered a decision of reexamination to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for remedy by recognizing the termination of the labor contract as the termination of a legitimate labor contract on February 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and .