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. An intervenor is a company established on March 22, 1991 and engaged in multi-family housing management business, etc. using approximately 350 full-time workers.

On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff is a person who became a security guard of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On March 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor for one-year contract period, and the Intervenor forged a written employment contract with the two-month contract period and then based on the same year.

2. 8. The termination of the employment relationship with the expiration of the period of validity, and the plaintiff was unfairly dismissed.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “application for unfair dismissal”). On May 24, 2016, the Incheon Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the Plaintiff’s application for unfair dismissal on the ground that “the contract term of two months cannot be deemed forged,” and that the termination of labor relationship on February 8, 2016 does not constitute dismissal due to the expiration of the term of the labor contract.”

hereinafter referred to as the "First Inquiry Tribunal"

(2) On June 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the above initial inquiry court, filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as prescribed by Ministry of Labor No. 2016, 2016. On August 31, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the above initial inquiry court.

hereinafter referred to as "the decision of review of this case"

(ii) [In the absence of dispute over the basis of recognition, entry in Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1, 10, Eul's 10, Eul's 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The term of a labor contract concluded between the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 by the parties and the Intervenor was one year, but the Intervenor unilaterally terminated the employment relationship by forging a written labor contract with the two-month period.

As such, the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed from the Intervenor, and thus, the Plaintiff is on a different premise.