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.

The circumstances leading up to the decision of reexamination are corporations established on July 29, 1986 and established 74 branches and branches across the country with approximately 100 workers, providing education, counseling services, etc. for the disabled and their families, and A Gyeongnam Branch Association (hereinafter “instant branch”) is composed of the Plaintiff’s members.

On January 1, 2014, the intervenors were employed by the D Center of the instant Branch on the part of social workers.

On November 26, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that the labor contract with the Intervenor (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) was terminated on December 31, 2014.

(2) On January 19, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the termination of the labor contract of this case under the instant notification is unfair, and filed an application for remedy against the Plaintiff on January 19, 2015 against the Changwon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On March 17, 2015, the Changwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Intervenor’s application for remedy on the ground that “the instant labor contract of this case constitutes a contract with a fixed period of time, and the Intervenor’s renewal right is not recognized. Therefore, the instant labor contract of this case was terminated due to the expiration of the term of time, and the termination of the labor contract of this case does not constitute dismissal.”

On April 24, 2015, the intervenors were dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on April 24, 2015, and the National Labor Relations Commission was employed as an employee with no fixed period of time on June 30, 2015. Since the former employment contract was in the form of a one-year employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the termination of the instant employment contract, which was terminated by the Plaintiff’s unilateral intent, constitutes dismissal.

However, the plaintiff was dismissed without holding a personnel committee and without confirming the grounds for dismissal.