The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court of first instance, which rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion, is justifiable, even if the Plaintiff appealed and the evidence submitted by the court was examined in both of the first instance court and this court, is not significantly different from the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Even if there is no "4 pages 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance", the following is added: "In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Plaintiff shall have the right of transition to a worker or a regular worker who has no fixed period of time, and even if not, the right of transition should be recognized."

B. We regard the 13th page 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “no one appears to have maintained or attempted to convert the Plaintiff into a full-time employee or a full-time employee without a fixed period of time.”

C. The Plaintiff’s expression of intent on September 21, 2018 cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s expression of intent in the course of appraisal and match with E. In addition, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent on September 21, 2018 cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s expression of intention.

At the bottom of the 16th judgment of the first instance, the following parts shall be added.

On September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff informed the Plaintiff on September 14, 2018 that E was the date of the issuance of the new team leader, and argued that the Plaintiff specifically explained the Plaintiff’s wage, treatment, and work contents based on the 2018 table of compensation bareboat by duties, detailed criteria for compensation, criteria for compensation for duties, basic wage increase management (draft). Since the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s expression of intent given and received are premised on the aforementioned contract terms, the Plaintiff should be deemed as a new offer on September 20, 2018.

However, evidence No. 21 1.