1. On June 24, 2014, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The plaintiff as the party to the decision of this case is a person who was enrolled in the intervenor on April 30, 2008 and served as a national park guard (disaster rescue team; hereinafter the same shall apply) at the Dogsan National Park Office, and the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter the " intervenor") was established on July 1, 1987 and employs 1,90 full-time workers and is a public institution that establishes and operates a national park.

On December 31, 2013, the intervenor refusing the renewal of the contract of this case against the plaintiff refused the renewal of the contract on the ground that the plaintiff, whose term of the contract expires with the plaintiff on December 31, 2013, was rejected by the national park guard conducted around December of the same year.

(2) On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Gannam Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the refusal of the instant re-contract is unfair. On March 19, 2014, the Gannam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on March 19, 2014.

On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the aforementioned initial inquiry tribunal, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission on April 17, 2014, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on June 24, 2014 on the ground that “it is difficult to deem the Plaintiff to be converted to an employee without a fixed period of time, and the legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract is recognized, but the Intervenor’s refusal to renew the labor contract is not an unfair dismissal.”

(2) In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute regarding the instant decision on reexamination (hereinafter “instant decision on reexamination”); and (b) the Intervenor’s assertion as to the defense prior to the filing of the entire text of the pleadings, even if the Plaintiff passed an open recruitment process, the Plaintiff’s remedy interest became extinct as it no longer necessary to maintain the procedure for reexamination; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the defense prior to the filing of the merits, including the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the entirety of the statements and arguments