1. On June 20, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered unfair remedy between the Plaintiffs and the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. C Co., Ltd. was established on February 17, 200 and employed by approximately 92 full-time workers and was a corporation operating maritime passenger and freight transport business, and was selected as a third-time business entity as a result of the tender of the E passenger ship operation service agreement executed by D institutions around December 2015.

Co., Ltd. was organized as Defendant Intervenor on October 25, 2016.

(hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor” as well as Co., Ltd. and Defendant’s Intervenor

Plaintiff

A served as the head of F-G-H E (J) from January 1, 2008, and Plaintiff B served as the head of F-K L from August 2005 to the head of agency, respectively, entered into a labor contract with the intervenor on January 1, 2016 and continued to serve as the head of agency.

C. On November 25, 2016, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiffs on December 31, 2016 that the term of the labor contract is terminated and the contract is not renewed.

(hereinafter “Notice of Termination of the instant employment contract”) D.

On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs asserted that the notice of termination of the instant labor contract was unfair and applied for remedy to the MU. MU.

On March 28, 2017, the M Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy on the ground that “the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is a contract with a fixed period of time and terminated according to the expiration of the contract term, and the trust relationship between the parties with respect to the renewal of the contract cannot be deemed to have been formed, and thus does not constitute unfair dismissal.”

E. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs appealed and applied for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination to the same effect as on June 20, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on review”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The key points of the Plaintiffs’ assertion are the Intervenor and the instant case.