1. On November 6, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered relief for unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 7, and 1-1, and Eul evidence 1-2, 2, 5, 7, and 1-1.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a company running an insurance business with approximately 5,800 full-time workers.

On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Intervenor for a two-year contract period, and worked in the Intervenor’s partnership business division. On June 1, 201, the Plaintiff renewed the labor contract with the Intervenor for a two-year contract period (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) on June 1, 201 and served in the same department.

On March 29, 2013, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff that the instant labor contract was terminated as of May 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant notification constituted unfair dismissal, and filed an application for remedy with Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission as Seoul 2013rd Sea 1983, but the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed it on July 26, 2013.

On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as to August 30, 2013. However, on November 6, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission: “The Plaintiff constitutes “the Plaintiff” as defined in the large classification 2 of the Korean Standard Occupational Classification, which constitutes the upper 25/100 of the wage and salary income of the said full-time workers, and falls under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “Period Act”) and Article 3(3)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-Term Act, and is an employee subject to the exception to the restriction on the period of use of fixed-term workers pursuant to Article 3(3)5 of the Fixed-Term Workers Act. In addition, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract if the Plaintiff satisfies certain requirements, it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s dismissal of the