1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The supplementary intervenor’s Intervenor’s participation in the costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a legal entity that is established on February 14, 201 and ordinarily employs about 40 workers and operates aerial drawing and drawing business. 2) The Intervenor Intervenor C (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered the Intervenor as an aircraft pilot on November 23, 2015, and the Intervenor B as an aircraft pilot on January 20, 2016, and the Intervenor C entered the Plaintiff’s Air Navigation Division as the captain, and the Intervenor B was engaged in the Plaintiff’s air navigation division as the captain, and the Nonparty was engaged in the Plaintiff’s air navigation division as a pilot. The said air navigation division was in charge of E in addition to the intervenors.

B. The work of workers and the place of employment under Article 2 (Work and Employment Place) of the conclusion of the labor contract with the intervenors are as follows, and the employer may, if necessary, change it:

(2) Notwithstanding the contract period referred to in the preceding paragraph, the starting period shall be three months from the date of the first commencement of service, and where the ability to perform the duties during the probation period, character, etc. is inappropriate for regular employment, the employment place in the aviation operation department may be refused.

Benefits may be separately determined during the probationary period.

(A) On November 23, 2015, the Intervenor C entered into a labor contract with the following terms: (a) from November 23, 2015 to November 22, 2016; and (b) from January 20, 2016 to January 20, 2016, the Intervenor B entered into a labor contract with the following terms:

C. Aircraft condition 1) The Plaintiff is an aircraft operated by the Intervenor for the purpose of shooting the aerial photography (hereinafter “instant aircraft”).

The Seoul Regional Aviation Administration (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Aviation Administration”) was operating the aircraft, but the Plaintiff was unable to repair and rebuild the actual exchange of the engine of the aircraft of this case on July 21, 2016 because it failed to conform to the technical standards of aircraft.