1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

The plaintiff is a foundation that operates a social job support project for the unemployed, etc., and the intervenor was employed on October 26, 2010 and worked as the head of the social company establishment support team, etc.

On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor of the termination of the term of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor on October 25, 2012 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

On November 21, 2012, the Intervenor filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Intervenor’s application on January 24, 2013, deeming that the instant notification was a notification on the expiration of the legitimate contract period.

On February 13, 2013, the intervenor dissatisfied with the first inquiry tribunal and filed an application for reexamination of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. On May 22, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the intervenor’s application for reexamination on the ground that the plaintiff terminated the labor relationship unfairly even though the intervenor’s legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract was recognized.

(2) In the case of an employee who entered into a fixed-term employment contract after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “Period-Based Act”), the requirements for recognition of renewal right should be more strict in light of the purpose of the Fixed-Term Act in light of the fact that there is no dispute (based on recognition), the entry in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the decision on reexamination of this case (hereinafter “Period-Based Act”), and the purport of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term Workers, the requirements for recognition of renewal right should be more strict in light of the purpose of the Fixed-Term Act. In the case of an employee who enters into an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the Personnel Committee is a procedure to be held only when a standing director intends to hire a full-time employee, and the