1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

On January 1, 2012, the plaintiff was employed as a specialist in the support for the livelihood of residents and the integrated social welfare service belonging to the intervenor on January 1, 2012, and the intervenor is a local government that employs approximately 1,200 public officials and approximately 480 workers and conducts local administrative affairs.

From December 3, 2014 to December 10, 2014, the Intervenor publicly announced the Intervenor’s implementation plan for the employment examination for fixed-term workers in 2015 to the effect that four managers of the integrated case are newly employed through document screening and interview on the Intervenor’s Internet homepage. The Plaintiff applied for the above employment examination.

On December 14, 2014, the intervenor conducted an interview with six applicants including the plaintiff on December 14, 2014, and then rejected two applicants including the plaintiff. The period of the plaintiff's labor contract was expired as of December 31, 2014.

On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission, asserting that the termination of the labor contract on December 31, 2014, supra, was unfair dismissal. On March 19, 2015, the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to expect renewal of the labor contract is not recognized.

On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on June 24, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the overall purport of the pleadings, and whether the entire purport of the instant decision on reexamination is legitimate, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff served as a fixed-term worker for three years from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2014, is referred to as the “fixed-term and Part-Time Workers Protection Act”.

It shall be limited to workers who have concluded an employment contract with no fixed period set forth in Article 4 (2).

Even between the plaintiff and the intervenor.