2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

On March 1, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that dismissal against the Plaintiff is null and void.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. On March 1, 2007, the Plaintiff was employed on a one-year basis at the Jeonnam University, a national university established and operated by the Defendant (class A) and then renewed the contract from around that time to February 28, 2010, and has been in charge of public relations and planning for the Jeonnam University during that period.

B. On February 4, 2010, the Jeonnam University: (a) held a special committee and recruited new human resources through open competition for more than two years; (b) decided to be reappointed as a contracting officer only when the period of service exceeds two years; and (c) on March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff was also appointed to the Jeonnam University as “a teaching assistant,” not an advisory position, for a period of service from around March 1, 2014 to February 28, 2014, with the position of “a teaching assistant,” who is reappointed as of March 1, 2014 and is in charge of public relations and planning affairs of the Jeonnam University.

C. However, on March 1, 2014, the president of the Jeonnam University, under the Defendant-affiliated University, notified the Plaintiff of his/her temporary retirement on the same day as the Plaintiff’s employment term expired (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dismissal of this case is null and void

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff is merely in charge of public relations and planning duties while working in the Jeonnam University, and there is no fact that he/she concurrently conducted his/her studies as a teaching assistant or conducted research support duties. As an exception, where an employer is allowed to employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years, it does not constitute “inter-Korean teaching assistant” as provided in Article 4(1)6 proviso of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”), and Article 3(3)4 Item (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. At the time of dismissal, the Plaintiff has been working as a fixed-term worker for more than two years, and thus, it should be deemed that he/she is an employee who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time

2) Even if the Plaintiff’s total period of service falls under the foregoing “intermediate”, if the period of service corresponding to the exception to the restriction on the period of service for fixed-term workers overlaps, the above period of service should be aggregated, and if the Plaintiff’s period of service exceeds two years, the Plaintiff constitutes a worker who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Workers Act

3) In addition, as the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was repeatedly renewed every seven years, the Plaintiff had a legitimate expectation that the renewal of the above labor contract will continue to be made, barring special circumstances.

4) Nevertheless, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff by simply notifying the termination of the contract term, and thus, the instant dismissal was made in violation of Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, etc., or violates the above expectation right, and thus is null and void.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The main text of Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act provides, “An employer may use a fixed-term worker within the extent not exceeding two years (in cases of the repeated renewal of a fixed-term employment contract, etc., the total period of continuous employment shall not exceed two years).” However, Article 4(1)6 of the same Act provides, “other cases prescribed by Presidential Decree where an employer is able to employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years,” and Article 3(3)4(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides, “the duties of assistant instructors under Article 14 of the Higher Education Act.”

In addition, Article 2(3)3 of the former State Public Officials Act (amended by Act No. 11530, Dec. 11, 2012 and enforced from December 12, 2013) provides that public officials in contractual service who are public officials engaged in the duties requiring expertise and technology or in the duties requiring flexibility, etc. in appointment under the employment contract with the State shall be deemed public officials in non-career service, and the fact that the Plaintiff renewed the contract from March 1, 2010 to the time of the dismissal of the instant case and employed as teaching assistants shall be as seen earlier.

2) However, Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Workers Act provides that "if an employer employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of the grounds under the proviso to paragraph (1), the fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time." Thus, Article 3(3)4(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that as to whether the Plaintiff falls under the causes under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff is a person who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time. In light of the following facts and circumstances, considering the above facts and circumstances, the evidence mentioned above and evidence No. 8, Article 4(1)6 of the Fixed-term Workers Act and Article 3(3)4(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be deemed to apply to the person who actually completed or engaged in research or research work while attending school, and thus, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff’s provision of Article 4(2) applies.

A) Articles 2(1)1, 8, and 26(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, Article 16 of the Higher Education Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 subparag. 1 [Attachment Table] of the Regulations on the Criteria for Qualification for University Faculty Members shall provide that teachers and assistant instructors working for educational institutions shall be appointed by the head of a university and they shall be “persons with an academic career who graduated from a school or higher than the school they intend to work” while Article 15(4) of the Higher Education Act provides that “the assistant instructors shall assist in the affairs concerning education, research, and school affairs.” Meanwhile, Article 14 of the same Act separates teachers who are assigned to a school as professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and instructors in addition to the president or dean, and separate regulations (Paragraph 2) that refer to the administrative staff necessary for school operation. In light of the location and contents of each provision, the assistant instructors shall be distinguishable from those concerning the necessary affairs concerning school operation.

B) Article 3(3)4(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-Term Workers Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22018, Feb. 4, 2010) provides that the term-term-term-term-based-term-based-term-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-----based-based---------------

C) However, since March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff took the form of employment as a teaching assistant belonging to the Jeonnam University, but only took charge of publicity and planning as before his/her previous work. Furthermore, on January 22, 2010, the president of the Jeonnam University sent a public notice to the head of the student support division, etc. who is employed as a contracting staff of the Jeonnam University on the same day, and on January 22, 2010, the president of the Jeonnam University prohibited the transfer of a contracting staff into an indefinite term position pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Contract Act by taking procedures for retirement against the contracting staff of the time society whose contract term expires as of February 28, 2010, and if it is inevitably necessary for the performance of his/her duties, he/she would be reappointed only in cases where the contracting staff members need to be reappointed for a period not falling under new employment or appointment as an employee of the contract staff of the labor force of the labor force of the labor force of the labor force of the labor force of the Plaintiff.

D) In a case where it is interpreted that the meaning of “inter-nam University” includes a person in charge of only the affairs necessary for the operation of the school, such as public relations and planning, as alleged by the Defendant, such interpretation does not comply with the purport of the Higher Education Act that provides for classifying teaching assistants and their employees as well as the purpose of the Higher Education Act that designates fixed-term workers as the name of “inter-Korean teaching assistants,” resulting in opening a way to escape from Article 4(2) of the same Act, which is contrary to the purport of the Fixed-Term Act. In fact, the provision on the appointment of teaching assistants at the previous South Korean University stipulates that the appointment of teaching assistants shall assist in the affairs of education, research and academic affairs (Article 5), and that the teaching assistants shall belong to the department of education (Article 5), but only if recognized by the president, the teaching assistants shall be assigned to each head office, etc. (Article 6), but only 34 of teaching assistants at a graduate school from among 243 teaching assistants belonging to the previous Korean University.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, since the Plaintiff had worked as a fixed-term worker for more than two years from March 1, 2008, whose labor contract was renewed as a result of the enforcement of the Fixed-term Employment Act, the Plaintiff shall be deemed an employee who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Employment Act at the time of the instant dismissal. Therefore, in order for the Defendant to lawfully dismiss the Plaintiff deemed to have entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time, there must be a ground for legitimate dismissal, i.e., to the extent that it is impossible to continue the employment relationship under social norms. As seen earlier, the instant dismissal of the Plaintiff merely on the ground that the Defendant is the expiration of the term of the employment contract with the Plaintiff without any justifiable reason is in violation of Article 23(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is a mandatory provision, and as long as the Defendant

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Park Byung-il (Presiding Judge)