1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a limited partnership company that employs 26 full-time workers and engages in automobile (city bus transportation services).

B. On August 25, 2012, the Intervenor (CB) entered into a one-year term employment contract with the Plaintiff on August 25, 2012, when 58 years of age, which is the retirement age under the rules of employment of the Plaintiff, and served as a bus driver, and thereafter renewed the said employment contract every one year on four occasions thereafter.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant employment contract”) signed by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

On July 15, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the intervenors that “the instant employment contract is not renewed any longer, and the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated due to the expiration of the period on August 24, 2017” (hereinafter “instant refusal to renew the employment contract”). D.

On September 28, 2017, the intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the refusal to renew the labor contract in this case constitutes unfair dismissal.

On November 29, 2017, Gangwon Regional Labor Relations Commission cited an application for remedy against unfair dismissal on the ground that “the Intervenor has the right to renew the instant employment contract, and the refusal to renew the instant employment contract cannot be deemed reasonable.”

(Seoul High Court Decision 201Da2017, 192, hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul High Court"). E.

On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on February 27, 2018 for the same reason as the instant initial inquiry court.

(Central 2017 Sub-Section 1253, hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). / [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the intervenor who was the chief of the plaintiff's management division spreads maritime action, such as accepting the plaintiff and spreading false facts that the intervenor himself would take a heavy responsibility.