1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

A. The Plaintiff is a subsidiary company of the Korea Broadcasting System established on March 8, 2001, engaging in domestic and overseas satellite cable broadcasting business, CATV broadcasting business, etc.

Defendant Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) joined the Plaintiff on September 15, 2014, and served in the organizing country’s organization production team from September 15, 2014 to January 12, 2015, and from January 13, 2015, respectively.

B. On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) held a personnel verification committee to decide that “the cancellation of the management of an intervenor is inappropriate;” and (b) notified the intervenor on March 27, 2015 that “the termination of the working period on March 31, 2015,” to the Intervenor.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant notice”). C.

On April 3, 2015, an intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for the instant notification.

On May 29, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed an application for remedy on the ground that “the intervenor is a worker who entered into a contract for trial, and the instant notification refusing this employment is justifiable on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds.”

On June 18, 2015, the Intervenor appealed to the Central Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for reexamination. On September 9, 2015, the Central Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for reexamination on the ground that “the Intervenor is a worker already employed at the time of the instant notice, and the instant notice of dismissal is unreasonable due to the lack of justifiable grounds.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). 【No dispute exists, entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 3, 14, and 15, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The intervenor in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is a worker who has concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for trial, and was a worker during the period of trial at the time of the instant notification, as the first period of trial was lawfully extended.

In addition, the plaintiff's refusal to hire the intervenors on the ground of the intervenor's low-level business ability and attitude, etc., the plaintiff's notification of this case is reasonable.