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.

The background B of the decision on retrial is a local government that established and operated a disabled shooting team (hereinafter “the shooting team of this case”) in a sports promotion and workplace sports team, which is a subordinate organization of the sports team on January 16, 2004, and the Plaintiff has been working as a national representative of the shooting team of this case since 2004.

On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 and 1 (the supplementary contract) indicated as the party to the contract as the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”). However, it is reasonable to deem that the Intervenor, who is not only an administrative agency, was the party entering into the contract with the Plaintiff as the party to the contract was B.

The term “instant contract” (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) was entered into with the following terms and conditions.

Article 4 Contract Terms are from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

Article 6. Matters not specified in this Agreement shall be governed by the intention of B.

B On November 27, 2017, the Si notified the Plaintiff of the content that “the labor contract shall not be renewed in 2018 as the contract term expires on December 31, 2017,” through the official document stating “the guidance following the expiration of the contract term of the B Si’s workplace sports team”, and the B City did not conclude the re-inform contract with the Plaintiff on January 1, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant refusal of contract”). On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the refusal of the instant contract was unfair and unfair to the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) and filed an application for remedy.

On May 23, 2018, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for remedy on the ground that “the Plaintiff is not recognized to have the right to renew the labor contract, and the labor contract between the Plaintiff and B was terminated at the expiration of the term, and the refusal of the contract in this case does not constitute unfair dismissal,” and notified the Plaintiff on June 18, 2018.

On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as the Central 2018 Sea 722.