1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, and the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") have additionally claimed or repeatedly emphasized the argument that the defendant and the defendant joining the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor") have additionally claimed or repeatedly claimed in the trial, and therefore, they are identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of Paragraph 2 below, so they are cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] The Sheet intervenor asserts that the personnel management and evaluation of the instant case was conducted for one month prior to the expiration of the employment contract, and that the contract renewal decision has been made based on the results.

① However, even if the Plaintiff had renewed the instant labor contract 14 times in total after the Plaintiff entered into the first labor contract with the Intervenor on September 1, 2014, it appears that there were some cases of refusing the contract renewal based on the Plaintiff’s personnel evaluation of the Plaintiff’s personnel management personnel management personnel management personnel management personnel and management personnel, etc. on the following grounds: (i) three cases including July 31, 2017, October 31, 2017, and June 20, 2018; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s personnel evaluation of the Plaintiff’s personnel management personnel management personnel management personnel management personnel, etc. on the evidence Nos. 13 and 17 submitted by the Intervenor and the evidence Nos. 20, 25 were not reported to the Intervenor on the expiration of the labor contract 2017, and (iii) it appears that the Intervenor had not been notified to the Intervenor from 17 years to 2017.