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.

On February 19, 2018, an intervenor in the process of the decision of reexamination entered into a contract for trial work including the following matters with the Plaintiff and has worked in the Ulsan Office for the plaintiff.

I. (1) The duration of the contract: B. From February 19, 2018 to May 18, 2018, the Plaintiff may terminate this contract if the Plaintiff’s performance ability, duty duty, duty, etc. during the duration of the Intervenor’s probation does not exceed 50 points in total.

As to the Intervenor, C, the head of the office of Ulsan District, drafted a weekly assessment log for each week, and C, at the time of the expiration of the above training period, was assessed on the basis of the weekly assessment log.

The assessment of the work evaluation table consists of the job performance ability (50 points), the worker's tax (30 points), and the possibility of development (20 points), and the intervenor received 40 points out of 100 points in the work evaluation of the last worker.

On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a notice of refusal of this employment to the Intervenor, stating that “The Plaintiff was informed that the Plaintiff was denied this employment as of May 18, 2018, based on the work evaluation conducted from the date of returning to the Intervenor until May 18, 2018.”

(hereinafter “instant refusal of employment”). On July 3, 2018, the Intervenor asserted that the refusal of employment of the instant case was unfair and unfair and applied for remedy to the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission as the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2018da93, Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission. On August 30, 2018, the Ulsan Regional Labor Relations Commission issued an initial inquiry tribunal confirming that the refusal of employment of the instant case was unfair and unfair.

On October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as Central 2018Buua118 on October 4, 2018. However, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court on December 31, 2018.

The plaintiff has enacted and implemented the following employment management regulations.

Article 26 (Training of Office Staff) (1) The new office staff shall be able to evaluate their ability to perform duties and qualities.