1. The Central Labor Relations Commission’s dismissal on February 7, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor against the second half of 2013.

Details of the Review Decision

A. On April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the principal of the Defendant-affiliated B (hereinafter “instant school”) and the term of the contract from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013, and worked as the school meal room kitchen. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract again with the principal of the said school and served as the principal of the said school and the term of the contract from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013, and was notified on February 28, 2013 that the employment contract was terminated (hereinafter “instant notification”).

B. On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification was an unfair dismissal interest and unfair labor practice, and applied for remedy to the Chungcheongnam-do Regional Labor Relations Commission. On July 18, 2013, the said Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling to accept an application for remedy from unfair dismissal and to dismiss the application for remedy from unfair labor practice.

(2013, 239/No36 consolidation, hereinafter referred to as "the first inquiry court of this case").

On August 8, 2013, the Intervenor appealed to the relevant dismissal portion during the initial trial tribunal of the instant case, and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission on August 8, 2013. The National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling No. 2013 and No. 702 around November 4, 2013, and the labor contract newly concluded after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-Term Act”) is anticipated to terminate the labor relationship within two years, while the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have the right to expect that the contract may be renewed for more than two years in total, on the premise that “the Intervenor could have expected that the Plaintiff would have concluded a labor contract with the Plaintiff for about one month period based on February 28, 2013, and even if the right to expect renewal of the said labor contract is acknowledged, the term of the contract does not exceed April 4, 2013, and thus, the interest of the instant case was extinguished as of January 14, 2013.”