1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

. The purport is as follows.

When the contract term expires each year, the Plaintiff has extended the total of four times of contract as seen earlier in the basic facts through the Defendant’s examination of extension of contract in accordance with the instant guidelines and regulations.

3) On August 22, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the “internal evaluation implementation plan” (from January 2, 2016 to June) with respect to the evaluation of work performance conducted against all the employees belonging to the Defendant. Of these, the details relating to the assessment of the Plaintiff are as follows: (b) evaluation criteria (individual evaluation) 1); (b) metropolitan-area chief manager (40%) for the person subject to evaluation, the person subject to the classification evaluation (60%) verification (40%); (b) the aggregate score by individual evaluation index (10); (10); 【100; (10; ±10; 【100; 【100; 【10; 【100; 【 100; 【 1530; 【 1530; 【 1530; 【 1530; 【 153000; 【

C. 1) - The internal evaluation council shall be comprised of not less than five members (three members of the main office and two members of the group), and the chief of the service center shall be selected - the chief of the meeting shall verify the scores and errors of the evaluation index evaluation results - the verification of the propriety of the increase or decrease - the verification of the average scores for each individual evaluation results 80 members of the D station who work for the plaintiff at the time of the implementation plan 4 above, and the chief of the E-group shall be assessed as the superior, while the chief of the D station shall be assessed as the senior, for the eight fixed-term workers who work for the plaintiff at the time of the implementation plan 4 above.