2. B

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

respect the case of applying for re-examination of unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices in 2005.

The decision made by the review shall be revoked.

A. The intervenor employed 14 full-time workers and engaged in community bus transportation business. The plaintiff A and the plaintiff B signed a short-term contract with each participant company on April 18, 2003 and renewed the employment contract with each participant company on April 22, 2005, while the plaintiff A and the plaintiff B were employed as a driver on April 25, 2005, each of which was rejected on April 25, 2005 (hereinafter "the rejection of the renewal of the employment contract in this case"). The plaintiff B are members of the CC branch on March 24, 2005.

C. On June 15, 2005, the plaintiffs asserted that the rejection of the renewal of the contract of this case was unfair and unfair to the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and rejected the application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices, and the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy filed by the plaintiffs on August 17, 2005. The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the application and dismissed September 26, 2005.

Although the National Labor Relations Commission filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination on May 16, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 9, 12, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. (1) The Intervenor’s bus transport business is an essential element with respect to the dismissal of the Plaintiffs (A). As such, it is unreasonable to set the term of the Plaintiff’s bus drivers’ labor contract, which can be deemed as the foundation for the existence of the Intervenor company as one year, and the renewal of the employment contract is stipulated in Article 4(1) of the Labor Contract Act in consideration of one’s disciplinary action and work performance, etc. As such, the Intervenor’s right to expect continuous employment through re-contract has been granted to the employee, and all of the Intervenor employees of the company have renewed the employment contract on the ground that the contract term has expired, and there is no time for the Intervenor to retire the employee on the ground that the contract term has expired, which is merely a type of unfair labor contract or a time period for understanding working ability and work aptitude of the operator. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s rejection of the employment contract should not be deemed to have been concluded on the ground that the Intervenor’s rejection of the renewal of the employment contract constitutes an unfair dismissal of the Plaintiff Company and the Intervenor’s rejection of the employment contract.

B. The facts of recognition (1) The intervenor entered into a short-term employment contract for one year with the term of contract, and then decided whether to renew the employment contract considering the worker's accident rate, the end of the contract, etc. The contract has been renewed at the time of renewal of the contract until November 2004. (2) (A) The plaintiff A entered into a short-term employment contract for the term of contract from April 23, 2002 to April 22, 2003. The renewal of the contract shall be decided in consideration of disciplinary action, work performance, etc., and if the contract is not concluded, the contract shall be automatically terminated, and the contract shall be automatically terminated until the renewal of the contract is renewed at the time of the renewal of the contract.

B) On April 18, 2003, Plaintiff B determined the term of the contract from April 18, 2003 to April 17, 2004 as one year, and the remaining terms of the contract concluded a short-term employment contract with Plaintiff A with the same content as Plaintiff A, and entered the Intervenor Company, and had the Intervenor Company renewed the contract one time until the rejection of the renewal of the instant contract.

(3) (A) The intervenor is the plaintiff A’s second renewal of the contract (term of April 23, 2004 to April 4, 2005).

22.) On July 1, 2004, while on duty, traffic accidents (amounted to 9.80,000 won; hereinafter referred to as the "amount of damage"), traffic accidents (amounted to 1.960,000 won) on November 3, 2004, traffic accidents (amounted to 1.960,000 won) on January 27, 2005, and traffic accidents caused vehicle damage due to the latter due to the latter due care, etc. on July 10, 2004 and the fact that each of the reports was submitted on April 21, 2005 as non-compliance with the time frame on April 5, 2005.

The plaintiff notified the plaintiff A that his employment contract cannot be renewed under Article 4 of the employment contract.

(B) On April 25, 2005, the Intervenor notified the Plaintiff Company’s rules of employment that the Plaintiff could not renew the labor contract under Article 4 on the ground that the Plaintiff Company’s employment contract was submitted to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2004, on the ground that the Plaintiff Company had been working for the renewal of the first contract (the contract period between April 18, 2004 and April 17, 2005). The Intervenor informed the Plaintiff on March 18, 2004, on May 1, 2004, the vehicle drilling, on May 25, 2004, on the ground that the Plaintiff submitted a letter of particulars concerning smoking during driving on October 31, 204, or a letter of circumstances (or the end of the contract) during driving on October 25, 2005.

Article 15 (Compulsory Dismissal from Office)

6. Where the employment contract period of an employee employed with a fixed period expires. Article 17 (Dismissal)

If a member falls under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may be dismissed:

(3) A person who fails to comply with a business order.

(3) A person who has caused a serious accident by intention or gross negligence, thereby causing human or material damage, etc. (not less than two million won).

Labor contract documents

Article 4 (Period of Contract and Renewal) (1) The term of contract shall be one year until the date of the contract (in the case of a new entry), and the renewal shall be determined in consideration of the person's disciplinary action, service performance, etc. (2) ( omitted). (3) The renewal of the contract shall be before and after the expiration of the contract period, and if the renewal of the contract is not made, it shall be automatically terminated, and if there are inevitable circumstances during the contract period, the contents of the contract may be changed after prior consultation.

[Ground of recognition] A.1 to 6, B. 4-1 to 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings is to determine whether there is no dispute.

(1) Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act on the grounds that Article 23 of the same Act on the unfair dismissal (A) limits the term of a labor contract and does not restrict the conclusion of a labor contract on the basis of the fixed term itself, the parties to a labor contract can freely conclude a labor contract with a fixed term of time, unless the term of a labor contract does not exceed one year. In the event that a labor contract is concluded with a fixed term of employment, the parties to a labor contract shall not be able to conclude a labor contract with a fixed term of time, and in the event that a labor contract is concluded with a fixed term of employment, the labor relationship between the parties to the labor contract shall be naturally terminated without being subject to separate measures such as dismissal of the employer upon the expiration

42489(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 42489).

B) However, in light of the fact that the majority of workers are the sole or important economic means for survival and personality realization (Article 32(1) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to work, and that an employer may dismiss workers only when there are justifiable reasons (Article 660(1) of the Civil Act provides that if there is no agreement on employment period, a party may notify the termination of the contract at any time, it shall be possible at any time. However, Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall not dismiss workers without justifiable reasons. Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act provides that "the employer shall not dismiss workers without justifiable reasons" shall not be allowed to enter into an employment contract setting the employment period for the purpose of avoiding such restriction on dismissal as abuse of rights. Thus, if an employment contract setting the employment period is concluded (Article 32(1) of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall have the right to work continuously renewed over a long period of time, and the employer shall not have reasonable grounds for refusal of the employment contract even if there are no reasonable grounds for refusal of the employment contract.

C) As to the instant case, as seen earlier, the Intervenor and the Intervenor entered into an employment contract setting a one-year period between the Intervenor and the Plaintiffs, but the Intervenor prepared a contract of contract of contract of contract of one-year period between all drivers of the company and all drivers of the company. Since it is an abnormal structure that, as long as the pertinent business continues to exist, it would not change the demand of human resources, the drivers belonging to the company would naturally have a reasonable expectation that most of the contract will be renewed upon the expiration of the one-year term of employment contract. In fact, the Intervenor’s employees belonging to the company have been subject to the renewal of the contract of contract of this case, and thus, there should be reasonable grounds for refusal to renew the contract of this case to recognize the refusal to renew the contract of this case as legitimate.

However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff A caused three traffic accidents during each one year's employment contract and caused damage to about 12 million won, and submitted a warning letter twice due to non-compliance with the time-off period and time-off period. The plaintiff B caused the accident of the crosswalk which is gross negligence and caused damage to 1.380,00 won, and submitted a warning letter four times due to the violation of the course-off, vehicle drilling, and smoking during driving. The above reasons seems to be a reasonable reason for the intervenor to refuse the renewal of the employment contract with the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the rejection of the renewal of the employment contract in this case cannot be viewed as unfair dismissal. (2) The part concerning unfair labor practices in this case is not unfair.

Unlike the ground of dismissal on the surface when an employer dismisses a worker, if it is recognized that the worker was dismissed on the ground that the worker performed the trade union activity, it shall be deemed an unfair labor practice. The issue shall be determined by comprehensively considering the ground of dismissal and the background of dismissal, the relationship with the employer and the trade union, and all other circumstances which can presume the existence of intent to engage in unfair labor practice. As long as the worker was dismissed on the ground of justifiable grounds of dismissal, it does not constitute an unfair labor practice by abuse of the right of dismissal solely on the ground that the dismissal does not constitute an unfair labor practice by abuse of the right of dismissal (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu301 delivered on December 23, 1994, etc.).

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, since the labor contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the intervenors has been lawfully terminated due to the rejection of renewal for reasonable grounds, even if the family intervenor's refusal of renewal of the labor contract in this case has shown a shaken of the plaintiffs' trade union activities in the refusal of renewal of the labor contract in this case, such circumstance alone alone does not lead to the refusal of renewal of the labor contract in this case's refusal of renewal of the labor contract in this case's lawsuit.

Therefore, the decision of the retrial in this case that the rejection of the renewal of the contract in this case is not unfair or unfair labor practice is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

Judges Hong Sung-sung