1. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on August 29, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor, against which the Central Labor Relations Commission was dismissed.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) B and C are co-representatives of the D Medical Care Center (hereinafter “the instant Medical Care Center”) which is a senior citizen’s specialized medical care center, and run the instant Medical Care Center by employing approximately 40 full time workers.

From January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff (EE) was employed as a dietitian of the instant medical care center.

B. On December 30, 2016, the Intervenor B, the employer of the instant medical care center, notified the Plaintiff that “the term of employment contract (from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016) is terminated due to the expiration of the term of employment contract (from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016).”

(hereinafter “instant notice of termination of employment”). C.

The Plaintiff asserted to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission that the notice of termination of the labor relationship of this case constitutes unfair dismissal in light of the following: “The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time with the Intervenor who is the employer of the instant medical care center; even if the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of family affairs, the Plaintiff recognized the legitimate right to renew the employment contract and there is no reasonable ground for the Intervenor’s refusal to renew the employment relationship.”

(hereinafter “instant application for remedy”). On May 23, 2017, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “The Intervenor and the Intervenor, the employer of the instant medical care center, entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time, and the Plaintiff does not have the right to renew.”

Seoul 2017 Daz. 699, hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal of this case") d.

The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal of this case and applied for review to the National Labor Relations Commission.

However, on August 29, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court of this case.

(Central 2017 Annexed 636, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on review”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 12, and Eul.