2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

On May 22, 2013, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the part concerning the application for reexamination on unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice in the final judgment rendered by the Central Labor Relations Commission as to the application for reexamination between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and the application for reexamination on unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice remedy.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A) The Plaintiff is an incorporated foundation that operates the projects for supporting the social jobs of the unemployed, and the Intervenor was employed by the Plaintiff on October 26, 2010 as the head of the social corporate establishment support team, etc.

B) 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”).

C) On November 21, 2012, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the instant notification constitutes unfair dismissal. On January 24, 2013, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rejected the Intervenor’s application on the ground that the instant notification was deemed to have expired due terms and conditions of the contract. On February 13, 2013, the Intervenor filed an application for review of unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission. On May 22, 2013, the Central Labor Relations Commission received the Intervenor’s application for review on unfair dismissal, deeming that the Plaintiff was unfairly terminated labor relations (hereinafter “instant review decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the purport of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-term Act”), in the case of workers who entered into a fixed-term employment contract after the enforcement of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers, the requirements for recognition of the right to renew the employment contract should be more strict in light of the purpose of the Fixed-Term Act, and the re-contract clause in the employment contract prepared between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor cannot be the basis for the right to renew the employment contract, and the personnel committee is the procedure to hold only when the standing director is employed as a full-time employee, and the Plaintiff’s standing director has decided not to renew the employment contract after comprehensively considering the evaluation of the person with the right to expect the renewal of the employment contract, it is difficult to view that the intervenor has a legitimate right to expect the renewal of the employment

Therefore, the judgment of the retrial of this case is unlawful on a different premise.

B. Relevant provisions

/Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers

Article 4 (Employment of Fixed-Term Workers) (1) Any employer may employ a fixed-term worker within a period not exceeding two years (in cases of repeated renewal, etc. of a fixed-term employment contract, to the extent that the total period of continuous employment does not exceed two years).

(2) If an employer employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of any ground under the proviso to paragraph (1), such fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee who has concluded an employment contract

【Organization, Personnel Management, and Service Regulations

Article 13 (Classification of Employees) (1) The occupation of corporate employees shall be classified into general service, extraordinary service, contractual service, etc.

(2) The general service is an employee in charge of general administration and management affairs, who is classified by class according to his/her career and qualification, and shall be classified by class I through VI. The classification of class and qualification standards shall be classified by class, specified in attached Table 4. Qualification Table 4.

(4) Contract positions means separate employees employed in addition to the fixed number of staff to provide special affairs, administrative assistance, etc. for a given period.

Article 14 (Appointment and Dismissal of Staff) Standing Directors shall be appointed or dismissed after the deliberation of the personnel committee.

Article 15 (Personnel Committee) (1) There shall be established a Personnel Committee to deliberate on matters concerning the personnel affairs of the staff.

(3) The functions of the Personnel Committee shall be as follows:

1. Matters concerning the revision and abolition of personnel systems;

2. Matters concerning the appointment and dismissal of employees;

3. Matters concerning the reward and punishment of employees and related persons;

Article 23 (Evaluation of Work Performance) (1) The purpose of this Act is to evaluate the performance, ability, achievements, attitudes, etc. of employees in general service, except for those who have been in extraordinary civil service and whose period of service is less than three months, to induce the efficient utilization, ability, and quality improvement of employees, and to grant motivation for achievement by reflecting them in promotion and benefits.

(2) The performance appraisal shall be based on personnel grades and standards.

(3) Evaluation shall be conducted.

2. The regular rating under paragraph (1) shall be conducted on a regular basis as of the last day of December and the last day of June, and on a regular basis during July and the next year: Provided, That if necessary, it may be conducted by altering the timing or adding up or adding up recalls;

Article 24 (Evaluation of Work Performance) (1) The evaluation of work performance shall be conducted on the basis of the work performance, work performance ability, attitude of work performance, degree of integrity, etc. of the relevant employee, but it shall be conducted with reliability, feasibility and fairness.

(2) Detailed matters concerning the evaluation of service performance and procedures therefor shall be determined separately by the chairperson.

(3) Contents of work performance ratings shall not be disclosed.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract between October 26, 2010 to October 25, 2012, where the contract term with the Intervenor was from October 26, 2010, and the working hours were from October 25, 2012 to 18:00, and the said employment contract may be renewed one month prior to the expiration of the employment contract as other matters.

2) At the time of employment, the Intervenor was transferred to the head of the Operational Support Team on March 14, 201 and the head of the Social Enterprise Establishment Support Team on March 9, 2012, while performing the duties of the donator management team at the time of employment.

3) On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a fixed-term employee, conducted personnel evaluations (hereinafter “personnel evaluations”) with respect to the Intervenor and Nonparty 1, for whom the expiration of the contract period was imminent. The purpose of the personnel evaluations in this case was to provide an opportunity to win a regular position position. The first general team leader (60%) was to provide an opportunity to win a regular position, the second evaluation was determined by the secretary general (40%) and the last evaluation was made by the secretary general (40%) and the last evaluation was made by a standing director, and the evaluation method was as listed below.

50% 10% 10% 10% 10% in total, including the evaluation of service performance (performance) evaluation by classification in the main sentence, and other (ordinary punishment, previous year’s external appearance)

4) In the personnel evaluation of the instant case, Nonparty 2, who is the immediate superior of the Intervenor, assigned E (S) grade to the Intervenor, which is the most superior to most of the evaluation items, judged that the Intervenor was essential human resources for the Plaintiff corporation, such as enhancing the status of the Plaintiff corporation and making a great contribution to the creation of a social economic ecosystem. On the other hand, Nonparty 3, the secretary general, given to the Intervenor a vision or D grade on all evaluation items, the Intervenor did not seem to have shown the outcome of the Intervenor’s status as an intermediary manager in the general evaluation column, and it was confirmed that the Intervenor participated in the external seminars at the time of his/her employment as a campaign team leader and retired early from the education without permission, and that he/she received a verbal warning from the standing director in response to the pointed out of the standing director on inappropriate business affairs.

5) In fact, an intervenor worked in the Plaintiff Corporation for 2 years and worked in the Plaintiff Corporation 114 times (average 5 times a month) and 13 hours and 38 minutes a month (average 36 minutes a month and 7 minutes a month).

6) In a personnel evaluation conducted in 2011 (from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011), the intervenor fell under 6 of the total team leader, among 10 members of the total team, and sub- 8 of the total team leader. In a personnel evaluation conducted in September 2012 (from January 1, 2012 to July 2012), the intervenor fell under 1 of the total team leader among 8 members of the first and 8 of the total team leader from the second evaluation.

7) Meanwhile, prior to the instant notification, the Plaintiff transferred all of 4 fixed-term workers whose period has expired to regular workers, except one who want to retire according to their own will, and held a personnel evaluation and personnel committee to convert 12 fixed-term workers who are scheduled to have expired even after the instant notification.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Whether an intervenor has legitimate expectation right to convert into regular positions

A) In principle, in the case of an employee who has entered into an employment contract for a fixed period, the status of the employee as an employee shall be terminated naturally upon the expiration of the fixed period and if the employee fails to renew the employment contract, the employee shall be automatically dismissed even if the employee does not express his/her intention of refusal to renew the employment contract. However, even if the term expires in the employment contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. provide that the relevant employment contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements despite the expiration of the term, or taking into account various circumstances surrounding the relevant employment contract, such as the motive and circumstances for the employment contract to be renewed, the standards for renewal of the employment contract, etc., the establishment and actual conditions of the requirements and procedures for the renewal of the employment contract, and the contents of the work performed by the employee, if the parties to the employment contract agree with the trust relationship that the employment contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements, and thus, the employer's refusal to renew the employment contract unfairly in violation of the above provision does not have any effect as it is unfair (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1727.

Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the Act provides that “An employer may employ a fixed-term worker within the extent not exceeding two years” under the proviso of paragraph (1) provides that “An employer may employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years.” Paragraph (2) provides that “Where an employer employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of the grounds under the proviso of paragraph (1), the fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee who has concluded an employment contract without a fixed-term worker.”

As above, if an employer can employ a fixed-term worker within a two-year period of time, and if the total period of employment of a fixed-term worker exceeds two years, even if such fixed-term worker is deemed an employee without a fixed-term employment contract, considering the legislative purport of the above provisions is basically to guarantee the status of an employee by preventing abuse of a fixed-term employment contract, it is difficult to deem that the enforcement of the fixed-term employment contract prevents the legitimate formation of the right to expectation of the re-contract, or that the right to expectation of the already formed re-contract is extinguished.

B) According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor entered into an employment contract for a period not exceeding two years after the enforcement of the fixed-term employment contract, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s absence of any renewal of the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and the Intervenor’s employment contract only states that “it is possible to renew the employment contract” in the Intervenor’s employment contract, and there are no circumstances to deem that the procedures and requirements for the renewal of the employment contract for a fixed-term worker were set in

However, the following circumstances are revealed by adding the aforementioned facts and evidence, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence, and witness evidence of the court of first instance to the witness of the court of first instance, and the whole purport of the pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff's fixed-term worker belonging to a fixed-term worker belonging to the general service and project contract worker. Of this, the plaintiff's fixed-term worker is employed as a preferred fixed-term worker upon the request of the personnel committee for the verification period before regular employment, and then is prepared to convert the worker into a regular worker upon the expiration of the contract period. ② Such a fixed-term worker in general service has continuously been employed as a regular worker in the same manner as the worker, and the plaintiff's part-time worker in general service including the regular worker will be employed as a regular worker, barring any special circumstances. ② In fact, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's right to conduct personnel evaluation and conversion to regular workers after the expiration of the contract period after the expiration of the contract period. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 32070, Apr. 10, 10, 201000.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Whether the instant personnel assessment is appropriate

An employer may refuse to renew a labor contract according to the rules of employment or separate regulations in order to exclude or limit the legitimate expectation right of fixed-term workers after the enforcement of the fixed-term employment contract. However, if such requirements, procedures, evaluation, etc. do not exist objectively, rationality, and fairness, it is reasonable to deem that the refusal to renew a labor contract still has no effect as it is unfair.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized in light of the aforementioned facts and evidence, the statements in Eul and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 18, and the purport of the entire pleadings, since it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff notified the intervenor of this case through reasonable and fair evaluation, it is reasonable to deem that the notification of this case has no validity since there is no justifiable reason. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion as to this part is without merit.

① According to Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulations on the Organization, Personnel and Service of the Plaintiff, it is necessary for the personnel committee to deliberate on the appointment and dismissal of an employee. In order to appoint and dismiss an employee through this procedure, it is intended to ensure that a person subject to appointment and dismissal is subject to fair evaluation. However, the Plaintiff deprived the Intervenor of an opportunity to receive evaluation in accordance with fair procedures by notifying the Intervenor of this case without deliberation by the personnel committee.

② In addition, in the case of Nonparty 1, who was a person subject to personnel evaluation in the instant case with the Intervenor, it was converted to a regular position on November 1, 2012 following the personnel committee. At the time of the transition to a regular position, Nonparty 4, the head of the planning team, who was the head of the group, and Nonparty 5, the head of the planning and strategy general team, were affiliated with Nonparty 1, stated that there was no personnel evaluation conducted on Nonparty 1, who was the head of the group, and all Nonparty 5, the head of the planning and strategy general team leader, did not conduct the personnel evaluation on the Intervenor 1. There is doubt as to whether the instant personnel evaluation procedure conducted on the Intervenor was conducted fairly

③ According to the personnel evaluation method of this case notified to the intervenors on September 19, 2012, the person with the authority to conduct the first evaluation (60%) and the second evaluation secretary (40%) and the second evaluation secretary (40%) were required to have a standing director, and did not specifically set the criteria for the subject of regular salary increase. In addition, as the first evaluation authority, Nonparty 2 of the first evaluation director, who is the first evaluation authority with a higher ratio than the secretary general, is in a position to be able to make the most close observation of the performance, capacity, working attitude, etc. of the ordinary intervenor as an immediate superior, and as to the intervenors, he was in a position to evaluate the Intervenor’s work performance, such as “when considering the vision of the promotion team leader and the establishment support team leader at the same time, necessary human resources at the Foundation at the time of considering the vision of the foundation.” Even though the Intervenor’s performance was high, it was not known that the first evaluation authority did not refer only to the criteria for the transition of the regular staff of Nonparty 3.

④ Although the Intervenor was found to have been dismissed on 114 occasions during the period of his service, it cannot be deemed that the evaluation of root among the personnel evaluation in this case is more than 10% and more than 7 minutes per hour, and it accounts for a large portion. Nonparty 3, the secretary general, on the ground of the Intervenor’s frequent awareness, assigned a class “D (D)” to “17. Work” during the employee evaluation, but according to the evaluation criteria, D (D) was assigned at least once during his absence from office at least three times during his leave of absence from office, at least three times per week from his leave of absence, and at least two times per week from his leave of absence, he appears to have been granted a class “(B).” However, whether the personnel evaluation in this case was conducted in accordance with the objective criteria.

⑤ In addition, Nonparty 3’s position was changed three times due to the Intervenor’s failure to perform his/her role as the team leader, and he/she was immediately retired from the position at the time of his/her employment as the team leader at the time of his/her employment as the team leader. Nonparty 3’s oral warning was issued upon Nonparty 3’s statement and the statement of standing director (Evidence 9) as well as other objective evidence to acknowledge such fact.

6) The intervenor worked for two years and worked for more than 369 hours in total, and in the capacity evaluation in 2011, the intervenor fell under the first evaluation from among 10 members of the entire team in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation in the second evaluation (the intervenor was awarded the lowest scores among the entire team leader, and the second evaluation was conducted by Nonparty 3 in the same time as the personnel evaluation in the present case) and the second evaluation in the first to third of the evidence in Eul 18, it is recognized that the intervenor was faithfully performing the duties in charge.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the decision of the retrial of this case, which was made on the same premise, is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jung-Jon (Presiding Judge)