1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following judgment is added to

Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Judgment] The plaintiff asserts that "the contract of this case entered into between the plaintiff and the intervenor company is not terminated at the expiration of the term, but is terminated by the unilateral dismissal notice of the intervenor company, so the prior review ruling of this case is unlawful on different premise.

In the case of workers who have entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time, the status relationship as workers shall be terminated naturally, and in principle, if they fail to renew the employment contract, they shall retire automatically even without the declaration of refusal to renew the employment contract.

However, a labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. provides that even if the term expires, if certain requirements are met, the pertinent labor contract shall be renewed if such requirements are met. In full view of various circumstances surrounding the pertinent labor contract, such as the details of the labor contract and the motive and circumstances leading up to the formation of the contract, the standards for renewal of the contract, etc., whether or not to establish the requirements or procedures for renewal of the contract, the status thereof, and the contents of the work performed by the employee, etc., if there is a trust between the parties to the labor contract that the contract is renewed if certain requirements are met, and if there is a legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract, the employer’s unfairly refusing

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du12528, Feb. 13, 2014). First, the Plaintiff recognized the authenticity of the Plaintiff’s signature among the instant employment contract (Evidence B(1).