2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the decision made by the reexamination of this case

A. Whether a letter-based public official constitutes “worker who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed period” under Article 8(1) of the Fixed-Term Public Officials Act is basically subject to relevant statutes, such as the State Public Officials Act and the Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, such as personnel affairs, service, remuneration, etc., but constitutes workers who provide labor

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3051, Nov. 8, 2002). Article 3(3) of the Fixed-term Act explicitly stipulates that this Act applies to the state or the agencies of local governments, thereby opening the possibility of comparison between fixed-term workers working in the public sector and public officials.

In full view of the legislative intent of the Fixed-term Act aimed at facilitating the sound development of the labor market by rectifying unreasonable discrimination against fixed-term workers and strengthening the protection of the working conditions of fixed-term workers, Article 8(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act does not mean to interpret “worker who has entered into an indefinite employment contract” as an comparable worker under Article 8(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act only as an employee

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Du5391, Nov. 27, 2014). Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the instant commission’s simple research officials constituted “worker who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time” as stipulated in Article 8 of the Fixed-term Research Members in relation to feed research members, who are fixed-term workers.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(b) Correspondence research officials;