1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff is a subsidiary established by the Korea Gas Corporation (KOGS) by investing about 100% on November 23, 2009, and is an overseas subsidiary that ordinarily employs about 20 workers and engages in the development of CY as its main business. An intervenor is a retired member of the Korea Gas Corporation from May 12, 2014 to June 30, 2015, who worked as a DNA holder of CY development project (hereinafter “instant development project”).

B. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor that “The Plaintiff terminated the labor contract on June 30, 2015 on the ground that the term of the labor contract with the Intervenor was expired” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. On August 13, 2015, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission) on August 13, 2015 that the instant notice constitutes an unfair dismissal by the Plaintiff. On October 28, 2015, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that “The Plaintiff’s standing to be a party is recognized as having concluded an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and the said employment contract was renewed under the same conditions as the previous one.”

On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the said application for reexamination on March 16, 2016 on the same ground as the determination by the said Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision by reexamination”). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

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

A. The labor contract between the plaintiff 1 and the intervenor was terminated as the expiry date, and the plaintiff not only expressed his/her intent to refuse the renewal within a reasonable period but also the intervenor's right to renew the labor contract.