1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) entered the Republic of Korea with the status of stay for marriage immigration (F-6) and entered the Plaintiff as the data system developer on September 14, 201, and thereafter entered the Plaintiff, entered into a labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as follows:

B. On October 17, 2016, the Intervenor claimed that “the Intervenor was subject to an unfair dismissal from the Plaintiff on July 31, 2016,” and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered an application for unfair dismissal. On December 7, 2016, the Intervenor determined that “the dismissal of the Intervenor on July 31, 2016, which was made by the Plaintiff on the part of the Intervenor, is unfair. The Plaintiff revoked the dismissal of the Intervenor on July 31, 2016, and paid the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been paid to the Intervenor on July 31, 2016 during the dismissal period.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the first inquiry court of this case”).

On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant initial inquiry tribunal and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on January 10, 201, but the National Labor Relations Commission served as an expert and a related employee from September 14, 2011 to the intervenor from September 14, 201, and the annual average earned income at the time exceeding two years from September 14, 201, which is the first time of service, does not correspond to 25/100 of the upper average earned income of a person engaged in a two-class classification for Korean standard vocational classification, and even if the intervenor stays in the Republic of Korea due to his/her status of stay for marriage (F-6), it is difficult to view that the restriction on the period of employment under the Fixed-Term Employment Act only constitutes an exception to the restriction on the period of employment under the Fixed-Term Employment Act.

In accordance with Article 4(2), the Intervenor was converted to an inorganic contract worker, and the Intervenor appears to have been dismissed from the Plaintiff on July 31, 2016. However, the Plaintiff did not notify the Intervenor of the grounds, etc. in writing. Therefore, the dismissal was made.