The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the participation.

1. Causes and contents of the decision in the retrial;

A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a juristic person that was established on January 10, 1950 and ordinarily employs approximately five thousand workers and engages in construction business.

On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff is a person notified by the Intervenor of the termination of the labor contract due to the expiration of the contract period on January 3, 2018 while he/she was employed by the Intervenor and was in charge of the construction structure design work.

B. On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the Intervenor’s notice of termination of the labor contract was an unfair dismissal.

On April 2, 2018, Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “The Intervenor’s notification of the termination of the labor contract is justifiable since the Plaintiff’s right to renew the labor contract is not recognized.”

C. On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission.

On July 27, 2018, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the plaintiff's request for reexamination on the same ground as the first inquiry court.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. At the time of joining the Intervenor, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Plaintiff will convert the Intervenor’s architectural business headquarters to regular employees from C, a vice head of the Intervenor’s architectural business headquarters, into regular employees after two years of admission” was decided upon membership.

① In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff received the terms and conditions of hiring contractual workers at the time of the recruitment interview, and received the notice of rejection and then received the notice of rejection, and then entered the Plaintiff’s commitment again; (b) the Intervenor’s personnel management officer, even after the Plaintiff’s entry, means that the Plaintiff would be converted to regular employees unless there is any particular reason; (c) the Plaintiff and the Intervenor renewed the labor contract once on January 4, 2017, which was after the year of entry; and (iv) there is no notification from the Intervenor that there is any separate necessary condition regarding the transition to regular employees.