1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff, a school foundation that established and operates C University, etc., operates “D”, which is a cultural education program for the operation of cultural lectures and the International Campus from 201 to C University principal and international campus in charge of the essential programs of new students.

The intervenor was employed by the plaintiff on September 1, 2008 and served as C University International Campus College College and D's visiting professor.

B. After employing an intervenor, the Plaintiff issued an intervenor as a visiting professor on a yearly basis without preparing a separate employment contract by August 31, 2012, without preparing a separate employment contract.

C. On September 1, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted an employment contract with the Intervenor by setting the contract period as one year. On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor by setting the contract period from September 1 to August 31, 2015.

On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of the labor contract as of August 31, 2015, and treated the Intervenor as a part-time lecturer who is not a visiting professor from September 1, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant conversion”) E.

On September 2, 2015, the Intervenor asserted that the instant conversion constitutes unfair dismissal or demotion, and filed a request for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission. On October 27, 2015, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the instant conversion constituted unfair demotion, etc. and accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy.

F. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and 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 the same ground as the first inquiry court on March 7, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [The grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The decision of the retrial of this case, which concluded that the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case constituted unfair lectures, etc., is unlawful for the following reasons.