1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The cost of review shall include the part resulting from the intervention.

The following facts of the judgment subject to a retrial are remarkable in this court:

The plaintiff is a person who was employed by the intervenor on December 9, 2015 and served as a security guard of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment.

On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a one-year employment contract with the Intervenor, and the Intervenor forged a two-month employment contract, which was the contract term of which, then, the same year.

2. 8. The termination of the employment relationship with the expiration of the period of validity, and the plaintiff was unfairly dismissed.

The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission. On May 24, 2016, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy. On August 21, 2016, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the said initial inquiry tribunal and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on August 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”), seeking revocation of the instant decision for reexamination. The first instance court concluded on March 30, 2017, that “the Plaintiff and the Intervenor entered into a labor contract with the term of the labor contract fixed on or before February 8, 2016, as stated in the written labor contract for reexamination on December 27, 2015, the labor contract was terminated as the period of dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor and the Intervenor’s expiration of the labor contract, and the period of dismissal was not terminated as the termination of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

“The first instance judgment that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim was pronounced.”

Although the Plaintiff appealed, this Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the above appeal on July 5, 2017.

The plaintiff appealed against this and appealed, but on August 16, 2017, the order to dismiss the petition of appeal was issued and the judgment of the above appellate court became final and conclusive.

The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion as to the legitimacy of the retrial of this case is with the intervenor on December 7, 2015.