1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On July 12, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant.

On January 3, 2009, the Plaintiff is a local government that is engaged in the State and autonomous affairs for the promotion of the convenience and welfare of residents pursuant to the Local Autonomy Act, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was commissioned from the Plaintiff as a facility management volunteer (hereinafter referred to as “resident center”) of the Cdong Community Self-Governing Center located in Sungnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “resident center”) and served in the community service center until December 31, 2015.

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that he would not re-commission the Intervenor as a volunteer in 2016. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff rejected re-commissioning upon the termination of the Intervenor’s commissioning period.

(hereinafter “instant refusal to re-commission”). On February 4, 2016, the Intervenor asserted that the refusal to re-commission the instant case was unfair dismissal, and filed an application for relief from unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission as the respondent, and on March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff added the Respondent to the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Autonomous Committee”).

On March 29, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission: (a) decided on March 29, 2016, that “the intervenor is the Plaintiff’s employee who is not the autonomous committee; (b) was converted to an employee with no fixed period of time pursuant to the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers before the rejection of the re-commission; and (c) the refusal of the re-commission in this case constitutes unfair dismissal due to not only the grounds for and the time of the dismissal, but also the failure to notify in writing;

On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed against the Intervenor, and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, on July 12, 2016, the dismissal decision was rendered (hereinafter “instant reexamination decision”).

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 6.