1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is a company that employs approximately 62,00 full-time workers and engages in the manufacture and sale of automobiles. The Plaintiff is a person who entered the Intervenor on October 6, 2014 and worked in the Asan Factory’s account book.

B. The Intervenor’s month as of September 7, 2016

9. On September 9, 2016, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the term of the labor contract expires and the labor relationship is terminated.

(hereinafter “instant notice of termination of employment”) C.

On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification of the termination of labor relations constituted unfair dismissal, but the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision to dismiss the said application on November 25, 2016.

On January 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission seeking the revocation of the said determination. On March 15, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the said application for reexamination on the ground that “the Plaintiff constitutes an employee who entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time, and the Plaintiff is not entitled to have a reasonable expectation to renew the employment contract. Therefore, the notice of termination of the employment relationship of this case does not constitute an unfair dismissal” (hereinafter “instant reexamination ruling”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 34, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) is that the intervenor employed the plaintiff through a procedure equivalent to regular employment, the plaintiff and the labor contract were repeatedly renewed 16 times in total, the 12 times of the renewed labor contract was prepared after the termination of the previous labor contract, and the one time did not prepare the labor contract, the labor contract prepared between the intervenor and the plaintiff does not specify the place of work and the duty to be performed.