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. Pursuant to Article 121 of the Local Autonomy Act and Article 18 of the Local Education Autonomy Act (hereinafter “Education Autonomy Act”), the Superintendent of an Office of Education represents the affairs pertaining to education, art and science, as a local government delegated with part of the administrative authority by the State under the Local Autonomy Act.

B. On April 1, 2012, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) was employed as a professional counselor B at the Office of Education of Standingbuk-do on February 28, 2013, and the term of labor contract expired on February 28, 2013, and was transferred to the same position on March 1, 2013 through open employment, and retired on December 31, 2013, when the term of labor contract expired.

(hereinafter referred to as "the first employment contract of this case" in which the intervenor entered into an employment contract while serving as a professional counselor of the Office of Education of the Gyeongbuk-do as above.

On January 1, 2014, an intervenor was notified on November 26, 2014 that the term of the labor contract expires as December 31, 2014 by the C Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “C Office of Education”) and was serving as a social worker at the C Office of Education on November 26, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as "the second employment contract of this case" which the intervenor entered into as a social worker at C Office of Education.

On January 1, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 13, 2015, that the Plaintiff’s termination of the labor contract (hereinafter “instant termination”) on January 1, 2015 constituted unfair dismissal. However, the said application for remedy was dismissed on March 10, 2015.

(Seoul High Court Decision 2015Du24).

On April 1, 2015, the intervenor dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court and filed an application for review of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. The National Labor Relations Commission, on June 5, 2015, once the intervenor re-employed the intervenor through the process of open recruitment, the employer is the same person, and the work in charge also continues to be the same one more than two years.