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.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor is a company established on February 11, 2010 and engaged in the facility management business, etc. using approximately 120 full-time workers, with the head office set forth in C and D in net City C and D.

B. On December 28, 2015, the Intervenor and E Service (hereinafter “instant Intervenor”) entered into a service contract with the term of the contract from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 to take charge of the overall management of the facilities of the said Corporation (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

C. On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor concluded a labor contract under which the term of the contract from January 15, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor would engage in the management of facilities (hereinafter “instant labor contract”).

On December 19, 2016, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff on December 19, 2016 that the instant labor contract was terminated due to the expiration of the period of validity on December 31, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) No. 2017Du23, Jan. 4, 2017 that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. However, on March 3, 2017, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s right of renewal is not recognized.”

E. On April 11, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for review seeking cancellation of the said first instance trial tribunal with the Central Labor Relations Commission No. 2017Da316, and the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above first instance trial ruling on June 19, 2017 (hereinafter “instant review judgment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. Even if the service company that is responsible for the management of the facilities of the Corporation in this case is changed, the workers who had been engaged in the management of the facilities in the above Corporation continued to remain in the Corporation, and the Plaintiff also moved in the Intervenor.