1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are the part arising from the intervention of the third party by the defendant intervenor.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation established pursuant to the Ordinance on Support for Establishment and Operation A, which is the main institution of “C Industrial R&D R&D construction and performance proliferation projects” (hereinafter “instant project”).

B. The instant project was originally selected by the D Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (hereinafter “ Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation”) from the former Ministry of Knowledge Economy, and the Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation entered into an agreement with E from 2012 to carry out the instant project. The main contents of the project are as follows.

The project name: The total project period for the C Industry Performance Proliferation Project: from September 1, 2012 to May 31, 2022 (117 months): From September 1, 2012 to May 31, 2017 (57 months).

C. However, as the Plaintiff was established on July 14, 2016, the industry-academic cooperation foundation transferred the instant project to the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016.

On October 1, 2014, the Intervenor joined an industry-academic cooperation foundation and renewed the pertinent employment contract each year, and thereafter the Plaintiff was established, the employment relationship with the Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff. In the process, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor re-established the employment contract with the term of the employment contract from September 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

E. On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of an employment contract.

F. On August 28, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Northern District Labor Relations Commission) by asserting that notification of the termination of the said labor contract constitutes unfair dismissal, and the said commission accepted the Intervenor’s application for remedy on October 30, 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s refusal of the labor contract is not reasonable, even if the Intervenor’s right to renew the labor contract was recognized on October 30, 2017.

G. The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the foregoing initial inquiry court on November 16, 2017.