1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the decision is as follows, except for the addition of the following to the internship employment contract in part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

3. Work hours - The basic work hours shall be eight hours a week and forty hours a week. 4. Work days and holidays - Work days: Friday to Friday. - Holidays - Holidays are due to holidays, Saturdays and Sundays.

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the internship service period of the plaintiff's intervenor is different from the purport of the internship service period to employ the intervenor as the contract worker (it is limited to the trial period, as well as the process of the internship program, and the purpose of the internship service period is different from that of the contract worker contract, and the nature of the internship employment contract and the contract worker's employment conditions are different from those of the contract worker contract, such as the difference between the contract worker's service period and the wage, so the contract worker's employment conditions are different from those of the contract worker contract. Thus, the contract worker's internship employment period cannot be calculated by including the "two years" under Article

Therefore, the decision on review of this case should be revoked as it is illegal.

2) In the instant case, Defendant and Intervenor’s assertion A) since it cannot be deemed that the Intervenor’s continuous work period was severed by separately considering the Intervenor’s internship work period and contract work period, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff uses the Intervenor as a fixed-term worker for more than two years.

Therefore, even if the intervenor is regarded as a worker who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time under the Fixed-term Employment Act, the termination of the employment relationship with the intervenor constitutes unfair dismissal.

(b) The intervenor shall be considered as a worker who has concluded a labor contract without a fixed period of time.