2. The Defendant’s dismissal against the Plaintiff on September 23, 2011 confirms that it is null and void.

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

A. Labor relations of the parties

(1) The Defendant is a company engaged in the financial business, etc. The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract between November 1, 2002 and October 31, 2003 with a foreign exchange credit card company (hereinafter “foreign exchange credit card company”) during the term of contract from November 1, 2002 to October 31, 2003, and was in charge of assisting affairs by becoming a professional staff. The contract term on November 1, 2003 was renewed from November 1, 2003 to October 31, 2004.

The foreign exchange credit card was scheduled to be merged with the defendant around February 2, 2004, and the defendant paid retirement allowances corresponding to the service period in the foreign exchange credit card to workers, including non-regular workers, who refused voluntary retirement, and then the defendant succeeded to the employment of the plaintiff who refused voluntary retirement by absorbing the foreign exchange credit card on March 2, 2004.

(2) Since then, the plaintiff and the defendant continued to renew the above employment contract by fixing the contract period: ① from November 1, 2004 to April 30, 2005; ② from May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2006; ③ from May 1, 2006 to April 30, 2007; ④ from May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2007, ④ from May 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007; ⑤ from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007, respectively.

According to each of the above employment contracts concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant from November 1, 2004 to September 30, 2007, each of the above employment contracts provides, “When the grounds for termination of a contract under the Guideline on the Operation of Part-Time Workers and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter referred to as “part-time Workers Operation Guidelines”) of the Defendant arise or violates the service regulations, this contract may be terminated after notification 30 days prior to the termination of the contract, regardless of the period of service.”

(3) The fixed-term workers belonging to the defendant divided the exclusive telecom and the support telecom, and among which the support telecom is divided into “Ful-Time”, “Half-Time”, and “Pek-Time” according to its working hours. The plaintiff worked as Ful-Tim support telecom, who is in charge of the counter work of the business store (excluding receipts and disbursements, current tasks), card finance support work, and office support work, etc.

B. Opportunities to enforce the Fixed-term Act and to convert the Plaintiff into regular workers

(1) As the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-Term Act”) came into force on July 1, 2007, it is deemed a full-time employee in the case of a fixed-term employee employed for more than two years pursuant to Article 4(2) of the same Act. As such, the Defendant agreed with the Korea Exchange Bank Branch of the Korea Exchange Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Korea Exchange Bank Branch of Korea”) which is its full-time employee on the matter of converting a fixed-term employee into a full-time employee and agreed on the method of managing the fixed-term employee on July 18, 2007 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

1. The term “a fixed-term worker” means a fixed-term worker who is not converted to an inorganic contract worker as of August 2, 2007; 2. A fixed-term worker who is not converted to an inorganic contract worker as of August 2, 2007; 3. A fixed-term worker shall also be granted an opportunity for additional conversion, taking into account his/her work performance, etc.; 3. The process of conversion into an inorganic contract worker shall be transparent in accordance with fair and objective standards; 4. The wage and work conditions, etc. for inorganic contract worker shall be applied from the time of conversion, but shall not be disadvantageously changed. 5. 6. The welfare, welfare, etc. of an inorganic contract worker shall be improved to ensure that there is no unreasonable discrimination in accordance with the purport of the relevant Act and subordinate statutes. 7. Other detailed matters shall be consulted with the branch

(2) On August 13, 2007, the Defendant publicly notified the fixed-term workers to the effect that “the full-time workers should be selected, and the Defendant shall receive the application from August 14, 2007 to August 17, 2007.” Accordingly, 1,323 employees, excluding the Plaintiff’s fixed-term workers with less than one year’s continuous service period among the 1,605 fixed-term workers, including the Plaintiff, provided support to the above selection announcement.

(3) On August 31, 2007, the Defendant conducted a comprehensive evaluation on all of 1,323 fixed-term workers on the above-term workers. The main contents of the comprehensive evaluation on personnel management, training points, commendation, disciplinary action, qualification certificates, number of training subjects, recommendation grades of the head of headquarters belonging to the continuous service period, etc., and on the basis of the evaluation on personality and aptitude, the Defendant converted 1,000 workers with excellent performance to regular workers by referring to the evaluation on personality and aptitude. However, the Plaintiff was not selected as regular workers because it was not included in the scope of 1,323 fixed-term workers.

C. The defendant's refusal to renew his employment contract on September 30, 2007 and the progress of related litigation

(1) In the second half of July 31, 2007, the defendant prepared the "Contract Renewal and Termination Operation Plan" in which the employees whose total evaluation score for the last year is less than 80 (personal accidents and less than class C) as of the end of June 2007, among the fixed-term workers whose contract period expires, as of the end of June 2007. Accordingly, the defendant conducted a comprehensive evaluation for the fixed-term workers whose contract period expires in the second half of 2007 including the plaintiff.

(2) At the time of the above comprehensive evaluation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not apply the guidelines for the operation of part-time workers, which are provided for the absolute evaluation method at the time of the above comprehensive evaluation, and conducted the evaluation by the relative evaluation method in accordance with the Guidelines for the Operation of Contract Personnel enforced from July 1, 2007. If the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation method is conducted by the absolute evaluation method in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of part-time workers, the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation score is both 83 and 84 in the latter half of 2006 and 80 in the first half of 207. However, the Defendant assessed the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation method by the relative evaluation method in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of contract employees, and assessed the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation score as 75 points (personal accidents and D levels) in the second half of 2006

(3) The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the labor contract as of September 30, 2007, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s overall evaluation score based on the foregoing contract renewal and termination management proposal constituted employees with less than 80 points (hereinafter “the first rejection of renewal”).

(4) The plaintiff filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on February 15, 2008 on the ground that the defendant's rejection of the first renewal constitutes an unfair dismissal. The defendant appealed and filed an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the above application for reexamination on June 16, 2008.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a revocation suit against the above retrial ruling with the Seoul Administrative Court 2008Guhap27865, but was ruled against December 18, 2008, and appealed to Seoul High Court 2009Nu1183, but was dismissed for the same reason on September 25, 2009, and again appealed to Supreme Court 2009Du18653, but was dismissed on December 24, 2009.

D. The Plaintiff’s reinstatement and the Defendant’s refusal to renew the employment contract on September 23, 2011

(1) As a result of the above lawsuit, the Plaintiff reinstated to the Defendant Company, and entered into an employment contract with the Defendant for a period of one year from December 24, 2009 to December 23, 2010; and (2) thereafter, the term of the contract was six months from December 24, 2010 to June 23, 201; and (3) each of the above employment contracts was renewed for three months from June 24, 201 to September 23, 201 (hereinafter referred to as “instant employment contract”).

According to the instant employment contract, the term of the contract provides that “if the Plaintiff’s employment period is extended by means of renewal, etc. of this contract through an agreement between the parties on the necessity of their duties, the total employment period shall not exceed two years.” As to the termination of the contract, the Defendant may terminate this contract at any time if the Plaintiff intentionally or by gross negligence violates this contract or the Defendant’s bylaws. In a case where it is deemed that there is a lack of qualification necessary for performing duties as a result of evaluation of work performance, the contract may be terminated.”

(2) On the other hand, the defendant prepared the "Presive Proposal for Selection of Instigious Contract Workers" with the content that the defendant selects a person whose total contract term does not exceed 82.5 points as a person subject to termination of a contract with the last two comprehensive score of personnel management and the second average score, reward and disciplinary action, personality examination, etc., on a fixed-term worker who has been in the second year as stipulated in Article 4(2) of the Fixed

(3) On September 23, 201, with respect to the Plaintiff’s issue of termination of the contract term and the issue of conversion of indefinite contract workers following the termination of the contract term, the result of a comprehensive evaluation conducted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff twice immediately before that time in accordance with the counter-evaluation method set out in the Guidelines for Management of Contract Personnel.

The second evaluation on the 3rd evaluation date contained in the main sentence shall be based on average 857 (A) 80 (C) on June 30, 2010 on December 31, 2010, average 85 (B) 85 (B) 85 (B) 85 (B) on June 30, 2011. 84 (B) 80 (C) 82.5 (State1) on June 30, 2011.

Note 1) 82.5

(4) On August 23, 2011, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant employment contract is terminated on September 23, 2011, on the ground that the Plaintiff constitutes an employee with a comprehensive evaluation score of less than 82.5 points set forth in the standards for the selection of indefinite contract workers (hereinafter “instant refusal”) based on the foregoing comprehensive evaluation results.

E. Relevant provisions

The provisions of the attached Table shall be as specified in the attached Table.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s statements, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 16, 19, 20, 24 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

(1) Main argument

The plaintiff continued to work in the defendant company for more than two years from July 1, 2007 to September 23, 201, when the term of contract expires, and the plaintiff constitutes a worker who has concluded a non-fixed-term employment contract under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Employment Act, but the defendant merely refused to renew the contract of this case on the ground that the term of contract expires, which is null and void as an unfair dismissal.

(2) Preliminary assertion

Even if the plaintiff does not constitute a worker who entered into a non-fixed term employment contract, the plaintiff has repeatedly renewed the employment contract with the defendant several times and the procedure has been conducted formally, according to the agreement between the defendant and the foreign exchange bank branch, the defendant additionally gives the plaintiff an opportunity to convert full-time workers according to the agreement of this case, and according to the defendant's standard for selecting full-time workers, according to the defendant's standard for selecting full-time employment contract workers, the employees whose total evaluation score for the past one year is less than 82.5 points is less than 82.5 points, the plaintiff has a legitimate expectation that the employment contract can be renewed unless the comprehensive evaluation score is less than 82.5 points.

Meanwhile, both the “part-time worker operation guidelines” and the “part-time worker operation guidelines” established by the Defendant Company constituted employment rules, which stipulate the contents of the working conditions of the part-time worker. The Defendant modified the guidelines for the operation of part-time workers under an absolute evaluation method as of July 1, 2007 to the other party evaluation method, and did not obtain the consent by collective decision-making method of part-time workers. Therefore, the above guidelines for the operation of part-time workers are invalid for the Plaintiff, and the above guidelines for the operation of part-time workers, which are the previous rules of employment, should be applied to the Plaintiff. According to the above guidelines for the operation of part-time workers, the Plaintiff’s overall evaluation score for the past one year as of June 30, 201 exceeds 82.5 points 2). Thus, the Defendant’s rejection of the renewal of the instant case based on the points that the Defendant evaluated with respect to the Plaintiff by the counter evaluation method without reasonable grounds constitutes unfair dismissal.

(b) Sponsor;

(1) As to the main argument

The legislative purport of the fixed-term employment contract is to harmonize the abuse of fixed-term employment contract and the flexibility of employment, and in light of this, Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Employment Act applies only to the case where an employer uses a fixed-term worker for more than two years according to his/her intention, and the above two years should not include the period during which the employer was dissatisfied with the unfair dismissal (hereinafter referred to as the “period of dismissal”).

However, during the period from July 1, 2007 when the defendant enforced the Fixed-Term Act to September 23, 201, which was the date of refusal to renew the contract in this case, the period of using the plaintiff (=3 months from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 207 + one year from December 24, 2009 to December 23, 201 + six months from December 24, 201 to June 23, 201 + three months from June 24, 2011 to June 23, 2011). Thus, the plaintiff's primary assertion that the defendant used the plaintiff in excess of two years is without merit.

(2) As to the conjunctive assertion

Article 4 of the Fixed-term Employment Act shall be interpreted to the effect that the term of a fixed-term employment contract is limited to not more than two years, but does not impose any restriction on the term of a contract or the renewal thereof within that period. Therefore, the legal principles of the right to renew the term of a fixed-term employment contract, which have been recognized by the previous precedents, are contrary to the fixed-term employment contract law, and as such, the Plaintiff cannot be recognized

Even if the Plaintiff’s right to renew the instant employment contract is recognized, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s right to renew the employment contract of this case is not expected to be converted to regular workers if the fixed-term workers have worked in excess of two years according to the enforcement of the fixed-term employment contract; (b) the Plaintiff’s right to renew the employment contract is merely the right to expectation that the fixed-term employment contract may be renewed; (c) the Plaintiff’s right to expect is not the right to renew the employment contract without a fixed period of time; and (d) the Defendant introduced a counter-evaluation method regarding the assessment of employees under his/her jurisdiction and converted a number of fixed-term workers into regular workers, the right to renew the employment contract of the Plaintiff should be deemed to have been changed

In addition, the defendant converted a large number of fixed-term workers to regular workers and additionally granted the remaining fixed-term workers an opportunity to convert to regular workers. Nevertheless, the plaintiff received points below the standard in the comprehensive evaluation and received them more than twice in 2007 and 2011, and the plaintiff's renewal of the contract in this case resulted in unreasonable results that the plaintiff should continuously use the plaintiff whose work performance is low to regular workers, in case where the plaintiff is converted to regular workers pursuant to the Fixed-term Workers Act. Thus, there is a reasonable reason to refuse the renewal of the contract in this case.

3. Whether the Plaintiff is converted to an inorganic contract worker pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Contract Act

A. Relevant statutes and premised legal principles

(1) Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act provides that “The total period of continuous employment shall not exceed two years (in cases of repeated renewal, etc. of fixed-term employment contracts, to the extent that the total period of continuous employment does not exceed two years)” (Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act provides that “If an employer is employed as a fixed-term employee for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of the grounds under the proviso of paragraph (1), such fixed-term employee shall be deemed an employee who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed period

(2) In principle, the status of a worker who entered into an employment contract for a fixed period of time shall be automatically retired even if there is no declaration of refusal to renew the employment contract if the contract is terminated as a matter of course and if the contract is not renewed, the employment contract shall be renewed if the conditions are met, regardless of the expiration of the term in the employment contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. However, in full view of various circumstances surrounding the employment contract such as the conditions of the employment contract and the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the employment contract, the standards for renewal of the contract, the establishment of the procedure and the actual conditions thereof, and the contents of the work performed by the worker, etc., if there is a trust relationship between the parties to the employment contract that the contract shall be renewed if the certain conditions are met, the employer's refusal to renew the employment contract can be renewed. In such case, the employment relationship after the expiration of the term is the same as the previous one renewed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du81427, Jun. 14, 2012).

(b) Markets:

In light of the provisions of the above relevant statutes and the legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s last employment contract with the Plaintiff was terminated on September 23, 2011, is a “worker employed as a fixed-term worker for more than two years” as stipulated in Article 4 of the Fixed-term Workers Act and has already been converted into an inorganic contract worker. The reasons are as follows.

(1) In order to consider the organic employment contract as an indefinite employment contract, the employer shall employ a fixed-term employee for more than two years, and if the fixed-term employment contract is repeated and renewed, the total period of the continuous employment should exceed two years.

However, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant’s continuous employment of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff at least three years through repeated and renewal of a fixed-term employment contract during several times from July 1, 2007 when the term of the employment contract was finally terminated until September 23, 201, and that the total employment period during which the Plaintiff was employed as an employee is at least 3). Accordingly, this part of the issue is whether the issue is whether some of the Defendant’s continuous employment period under Article 4 of the Fixed-term Employment Act, which is the period of dismissal due to the Defendant’s primary rejection, can be seen as included in the “total employment period” during the period from October 1, 2007 to December 23, 2009.

(2) First, we examine the meaning of "use (or work)" or "ongoing work" as defined in Article 4 of the Fixed-term Work Act.

Article 4(1) of the Act on the Fixed-Term Workers provides that “An employer may employ a fixed-term worker within a period not exceeding two years” with regard to an employment contract on a fixed-term basis, and stipulates that “the total period of continuous employment” shall not exceed two years by providing that “the total period of continuous employment shall not exceed two years,” but shall be “the total period of continuous employment” or “the total period of continuous employment”, i.e., continuous employment., continuous employment.

According to the above, in the case of a repeated and renewed fixed-term employment contract, unlike a general fixed-term employment contract, it emphasizes the aspect of the “Continued employment” from an employee’s standpoint rather than the aspect of the “period of employment” for workers who are likely to operate in a convenient manner from an employee’s standpoint. Therefore, in a case where a period of gap exists in a repeated and renewed fixed-term employment contract, even if it is difficult for an employer to regard it as an actual period of employment from an employee’s standpoint, if it is interpreted that it falls under a continuous period of employment from an employee’s standpoint, it can be said that it is included in the period

○ Meanwhile, in a case where an employer temporarily discontinued a labor relationship for the purpose of avoiding the two-year restriction period and employs an employee again on a fixed-term basis, such a measure may be interpreted as falling under an evasion of the law in light of various circumstances, such as the length of the blank period, homogeneity of the previous and previous labor contract, the possibility of expectation of re-contract, and employment practice, barring any special circumstances, to include the suspension or the blank period in the two-year restriction period, barring any special circumstance. This may be deemed based on the purport and purport of the Act on the Fixed-term Employment and the normative aspect, such as the protection of employment security and working conditions of a fixed-term worker, even if the employer does not

In addition, where the term of a labor contract is renewed after the expiration of the term of a labor contract or where a contract is repeatedly concluded on the same conditions, the determination on whether to continue employment and the number of years of continuous employment should be made by adding up the term of a renewed or repeated contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da26168, Jul. 11, 1995). Even if there exists a certain gap between a repeated and renewed labor contract, the term of a labor contract is not longer than the total term of a labor contract, and where it is deemed that there is a considerable reason for not providing labor or not paying wages during the period of a waiting or transition, such as seasonal factors or vacation period, and there is a considerable reason for not paying wages during the period of a labor contract, it can be deemed that the continuity of a labor contract remains even during that period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da29736, Dec. 7, 2006).

However, although the above legal principle concerns the existence or absence of the duty to pay retirement allowances, it can be seen to the purport of limiting the possibility of evasion of the law, such as evasion of the duty to pay retirement allowances, as stipulated under the Labor Standards Act, and from the standpoint of an employer, where it can be deemed that an employee continued to work from the standpoint of an employee even though it cannot be seen as an actual period of use, it can be seen to the purport of protecting the employee by recognizing the continuous work. Moreover, in light of the fact that the employer’s “use” or “ consecutive work” is a normative concept, it can be seen as a normative interpretation and application of Article 4 of the Fixed-term Workers Act that adopts the similar purpose, form, period calculation method, and legal term, the above legal principle on “the continuity of

However, in cases where there exists a blank period between a fixed-term employment contract which has been repeated and renewed as above, in light of all the circumstances such as the developments leading up to the blank period, the length of the period, the characteristics of the pertinent work, the homogeneity of the post and post labor contract, and the possibility of expectation of the re-contract, even if the actual use or provision of labor has not been made during the blank period, if it is judged that the employment relationship before and after is not interrupted and that it is reasonable to include the blank period in the continuous employment period, in principle, the continuity of the post and the continuous employment relationship is recognized, and the blank period can be included in the calculation of the period of employment or the continuous employment period of the employer. However, according to specific and individual circumstances such as the special purpose and purpose of the Act on the Fixed-term Employment, the balance between the employer and the employee, the reasons for the blank period, and the responsibility for the occurrence thereof, the part of the period for which the continuous employment can be denied, or at least the actual use or provision of labor has not been made, may be excluded from the restricted period of two years

From this point of view, the above "two years" can be deemed to refer to the period of actual employment or work rather than the period of formal employment contract. Thus, even if the period of employment contract exceeds two years, if the employment relationship is terminated due to justifiable reasons after two years or less, it shall not be deemed to be an inorganic employment contract, and even if the period of employment contract is less than two years, if the period of employment contract is less than two years through repeated renewal, etc., it shall be deemed to be a conversion into an inorganic employment contract. ② The employer's "use" as provided in the Fixed-Term Act or the corresponding worker's "in consecutive work" can be deemed to be only recognized if the employer exercised or could exercise the right to command work based on the employment contract regarding the actual fixed-term worker. Thus, if the worker can not exercise the right to command work for the worker without any reason, such as occupational injury or disease, the period of employment can be deemed to be excluded in calculating the period of employment.

(3) As examined below, the Defendant’s refusal to renew the first renewal contract against the Plaintiff on or around September 2007 infringed on the Plaintiff’s right to reasonable and reasonable expectation that the future labor contract would be renewed, and there is no validity like the unfair dismissal. As such, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the termination of the contract on September 30, 2007 with the expiration of the period of validity is the same as the renewed contract on July 1, 2007.

○○ First, the following circumstances have existed at the time of refusal of the first renewal, namely, ① the Defendant Company entered into a renewal contract with most employees except for the class C or less, among the employees whose contract term expires each year in accordance with the guidelines for the operation of part-time workers, and whose position is bad, and the Defendant Company renewed the labor contract on March 2004, even between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff who succeeded to employment on March 2004. ② The Plaintiff was deprived of the subject of the first,00 indefinite contract positions, but the Defendant was given the opportunity to convert the Plaintiff into the inorganic contract positions in the future. ③ The Defendant’s proposal for renewal and termination operation of the contract prepared on July 31, 2007, which was concluded by the Defendant on June 31, 2007, should be considered as having a reasonable comprehensive evaluation of employment contracts between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for less than 80 (class C) with the comprehensive evaluation score for the last one year as of June 207, 2007.

○○, however, the management guidelines for part-time workers and the management guidelines for contract workers, which stipulate the appointment of contract workers, work performance evaluation, renewal of employment contract, etc., are all set forth in the rules of employment. Accordingly, the management guidelines for part-time workers, among the part-time workers, may be adjusted by additional points, but, in principle, the work evaluation in the part-time workers' work management guidelines is conducted by the exclusive evaluation of the person in charge, at a level from S to D, etc., and the defendant has decided whether to renew the employment contract every year based on the personnel evaluation conducted as above. The management guidelines for contract employees newly established by the defendant, by the counter evaluation method, have 20% of all contract workers and 10% of all contract workers receive D from the total evaluation method, and according to the re-contract standards set out in the operation guidelines for part-time workers, if they comply with the contract renewal and termination proposal, they constitute a disadvantageous change in the contract, and thus, they constitute a violation of the rules of employment, unless there are any special circumstances.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant obtained the consent of the contract-based workers by the collective decision-making method with regard to the above change in the evaluation method, and furthermore, it is not always reasonable in social norms to exclude contract-based workers from the subject of renewal contract without relation to the individual workers' working ability and work attitude through the change in the above evaluation method. Therefore, the evaluation method under the above management guidelines for contract-based workers cannot be applied to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff's work evaluation scores are 83 and 84 points in the second half of 2006 and in the second half of 2007, the work evaluation scores of the person in charge of the second half of 2006 and the person in charge of the second half of 2007, which fall under class B (it does not change from 82 and 83 points even if reflecting the second adjustment scores of the vice president). The defendant assessed the plaintiff's last work evaluation scores by the counter evaluation methods set out in the contract staff management guidelines as 75 points in the second half of 2006 and 80 points in the second half of 2007 (C grade). In addition, it is difficult to recognize the above evaluation scores as appropriate in light of the evaluation methods set out in the former part-time workers management guidelines. Accordingly, refusal of labor contracts by the intervenor on the above ground of work evaluation scores cannot be deemed reasonable under social norms.

(4) As seen earlier, the Defendant’s refusal of the primary renewal is without any effect, and therefore, despite the expiration of the period of September 30, 2007, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the termination of the previous labor contract (i.e., the three-month contract period period of July 1, 2007) can be deemed to be the same as the renewal of the previous labor contract. Accordingly, the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is ultimately deemed to have continued to have continued to exist continuously and repeatedly since October 1, 207 until the reinstatement.

However, even if the defendant actually used the plaintiff or provided the plaintiff with labor for the period after October 1, 2007, the labor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant after the expiration of the first renewal contract, i.e., the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant after October 1, 2007 can be recognized without the blank period, and ii) in light of the legal principles as to the blank period in the employment contract repeated and renewed under the above paragraph (2), in principle, the period of the employment contract after October 1, 2007 may be included in the two-year restriction period under the Fixed-term Act. < Amended by Act No. 8577, Oct. 2, 2007; Act No. 8577, Oct. 2, 2007; Act No. 8170, Oct. 24, 2007; Act No. 8507, Oct. 1, 2007>

(5) On the other hand, in a case where the term of an employment contract renewal or dismissal due to the dismissal can be included in the term of restriction on the use of Article 4-2 of the Fixed-term Employment Act, if the ordinary period required for the trial, such as nullification of the dismissal, even if the result of conversion into an indefinite employment contract may arise as it exceeds the term of restriction on the use of the previous two years, including ① such circumstance is based on the employer's causes attributable to the refusal of dismissal or renewal, and there is no disadvantage to the employee, ② there is a need to protect workers' expectations for conversion into an indefinite employment contract through the repetition and renewal of a fixed-term employment contract, ② there is a need to protect workers' expectations for conversion into an indefinite employment contract through the repetition and renewal of the fixed-term employment contract, and ③ there is a risk of abuse of the fixed-term employment contract unless the period of dismissal is included in the term of two years, ④ such circumstance concerns may arise only when the fixed-term employee is acknowledged to have a legitimate expectation right to renew the contract, and there is no reasonable reason to view that the aforementioned two-year period of restriction on the dismissal as included in the fixed-term.

(c) Conclusion

Ultimately, at the time when the fixed-term employment contract is terminated as of September 23, 201, the Plaintiff is deemed to have been converted to an employee who entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time, since the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the instant case premised on the Plaintiff’s still in the position of an organic employment contractor is null and void as it is impossible for the Plaintiff to have any effect, and on other premise, the Defendant asserts that the refusal to renew the instant contract was terminated as of September 23, 201 with the Plaintiff as of September 23, 201, and thus, the Plaintiff is also recognized as a benefit to seek confirmation of its invalidity.

4. assumptive judgment - Whether the refusal of renewal in this case is null and void as an unfair refusal of renewal -

Even if the plaintiff cannot be viewed as being converted to an inorganic contract worker because the period of dismissal for which the plaintiff does not actually use or provide labor cannot be included in the two-year period of restriction on use under Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Employment Act, the rejection of the renewal of the contract in this case is an infringement of the plaintiff's legitimate expectation regarding the renewal of the contract, and its validity cannot be recognized as unfair. The reasons are

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s renewed right is recognized

In light of the above legal principles as seen in Section 3-A (A) of the above, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of oral argument, i.e., ① before the expiration of the contract period on July 1, 2007, the Defendant has repeatedly and renewed most of the employment contracts with workers with less than 80 points in comprehensive evaluation among the fixed-term workers with poor work attitude (e.g., less than class C) or less than the small number of workers with poor work attitude. Accordingly, even after the enforcement of the fixed-term employment contract with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has repeatedly and renewed the employment contract more than four times before and after the termination of the contract period. ② The proposal for selection of fixed-term workers with the Defendant company stated that the comprehensive evaluation score for the past one year from among the fixed-term workers with the total contract period of 2 years is subject to the comprehensive evaluation for not more than 82.5 points before and after the enforcement of the Act on the Management of Fixed-Term Workers, and that there is no possibility to renew or renew the employment contract with the law.

B. Whether it constitutes a rejection of renewal without reasonable grounds

(1) If there are circumstances under which an employer would have the expectation of continuous employment of a fixed-term worker after the expiration of the term of validity, there must be reasonable grounds that the employer would have deemed reasonable by social norms in order to reject the renewal of the term of employment. However, the rejection of renewal of the term of employment is not just a dismissal itself within the ordinary meaning, and the reason for rejection of renewal is somewhat broad than that of dismissal.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole in light of the health team, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the purport of the entire arguments, the Defendant’s refusal of the renewal of the instant employment contract on the ground that the Defendant’s refusal of the renewal of the instant employment contract constitutes not more than 82.5 points on the ground that, after evaluating the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation point at the second half of 2010 and the first half of 2011 by the relative evaluation method in accordance with the guidelines for the management of contracting staff, the Defendant assessed the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation point at an average of 82.

○ The Plaintiff continued to work for the Defendant Company while entering into an employment contract on November 1, 2002 with a foreign exchange credit card for a fixed-term contract term of one year and serving as a professional employee on November 1, 2002, with the exception of the period of dismissal from October 1, 2007 to December 23, 2009, which is the period of dismissal by the first refusal of renewal. From March 2004, the Plaintiff continued to work for the Defendant Company in concluding the employment contract by succession to the Defendant Company and repeating and renewal of the employment contract before the first renewal. From December 24, 2009 to September 23, 201, the judgment that the first refusal of renewal is null and void became final and conclusive.

○ The Defendant first granted the Plaintiff an opportunity to convert into an inorganic contract employee at around 2007, but as seen earlier, this is based on a relative evaluation method in accordance with the guidelines for the management of contract employees newly implemented. In addition, in the absolute evaluation, it was conducted without the consent of the relevant contract workers on the modification of the evaluation method to the relative evaluation method, and it is difficult to recognize the appropriateness of the evaluation at the time in light of the evaluation methods set out in the existing guidelines for the management of part-time workers, so it is difficult to recognize a reasonable reason recognized as socially accepted by social norms. Accordingly, the judgment that the rejection of the first renewal against the Plaintiff by the above evaluation becomes null and void.

○ After the Defendant reinstated the Plaintiff as of December 24, 2009 according to the above final judgment, the Defendant concluded and renewed a labor contract for one year from December 24, 2009 to December 23, 2010, and six months from December 24, 2010 to June 23, 2011. After recognizing the two-year restriction period under the Fixed-term Act, the Defendant renewed the labor contract for a short period of three months from June 24, 201 to September 23, 2011, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s comprehensive evaluation method in accordance with the guidelines for the management of contracting employees falls under an employee of less than 82.5 points set forth in the comprehensive evaluation standard for the selection of indefinite contract workers.

When the employer amends the working conditions stipulated in the rules of employment to a disadvantage to the employee without the consent of the employee, the effect of the revision is no longer effective in relation to the existing worker whose vested interests are infringed, and the validity of the previous rules of employment is maintained as is. However, in relation to the worker who accepted the working conditions under the revised rules of employment after the revision and acquired employment relations, the revised rules of employment should be applied as a matter of course, and there is no ground to view that the previous rules of employment should be applied by denying the effect of the revision to the employee employed after the revision without any ground to exclude the infringement of vested interests (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da45165 delivered on December 22, 192, etc.).

However, as seen earlier, the first renewal refusal is an unfair infringement of the plaintiff's legitimate expectation right to renew the plaintiff's labor contract, and therefore, the labor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is deemed to have continued even after the expiration of the contract period on September 30, 2007, as the previous labor contract was renewed. Therefore, the above legal principle cannot be applied to this case. Accordingly, as long as the defendant fails to meet the legitimate requirement for the revision of the employment rules, the defendant applied the above guidelines to the rejection of the renewal of the contract in this case by applying the above guidelines, notwithstanding the absence of the application of the guidelines to the plaintiff.

○ Meanwhile, according to the results of the comprehensive evaluation of the Plaintiff conducted by the Defendant on three occasions immediately before the rejection of the instant renewal in accordance with the relative evaluation method set out in the Guidelines for Management of Contract Personnel, the first, 85, 87, and 80 in the first, the second, second, and third, 85 in the latter part of 2010. In the latter part of 2010, the second, 85, and third, 85 in the first, second, and third, 84 in the first, second, and 84 in the case of the second half of 2011. The second, except the third evaluation in the first, the second, second, and 2010, the second, all of which are relatively advanced until the end of 2010.

However, in the case of the first half evaluation in 201, both the Plaintiff and the second half evaluation shall be granted 82.5 points to the Plaintiff at least 84 points with the highest approach, while the third evaluation person with the lowest approach set 80 points which considerably fall short of their 82.5 points to the Plaintiff, which led to the refusal of the renewal of the instant case at the end of 82.5 points, the average termination point at least twice, which is accurately different from the average evaluation point at which the average of the third half evaluation point at least twice, was reached. As such, there is no reasonable reason that the third evaluation point at the first half of 201, in 201, caused a big gap in the above width compared with the previous evaluation point at the third half of 2011, nor there is no objective data to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s work or attitude falls short of its standard point at the first half evaluation point at the second half of 201, and there is no objective data to support the renewal of employment other than the Plaintiff.

The above-mentioned circumstances surrounding the evaluation of work can be an important factor in determining the reasonableness of rejection of renewal in that it is determined whether or not the labor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant can be converted into a labor relationship with no fixed period of time or should be terminated ultimately.

In the instant employment contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant after the enforcement of the Fixed-Term Act, the term of the employment contract of this case provides that "the total employment period shall not exceed two years even if the employment period of the plaintiff is extended by means of renewal, etc. of this contract through an agreement between the parties according to the necessity of the work," but if the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was newly formed after the enforcement of the Fixed-term Act, a separate theory is that if the employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was newly formed after the enforcement of the Fixed-Term Employment Act, even if the plaintiff, who is in the position of acquiring the legitimate expectation right for the renewal of the contract before and after the enforcement of the Fixed-Term Employment Act, entered into the said employment contract with the defendant that concerns the conversion of the contract into an inorganic employment relationship under the Fixed-Term Employment Act,

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance has different conclusions, so it is revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition with the confirmation of nullity of the rejection of this case.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-hae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The average of the third evaluation point of December 31, 2010 85 (B) and the third evaluation point of June 30, 201 80 (C).

2) The average score shall be 84.5 points with 85 points for the second half of the year 2010 and 84 points for the second half of the year 2011. The former Guidelines for the Operation of Part-Time Workers shall include only the second half.

Note3) = Three months from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 207 + one year from December 24, 2009 to December 23, 2010 + six months from December 24, 201 to June 23, 201 + three months from June 24, 201 to September 23, 201

4) In other words, despite the existence of the period of unfair dismissal from October 1, 2007 to December 23, 2009, which was the day following the expiration of the term of a labor contract, and the actual use or provision of labor has been suspended, the purport of recognizing the identity or continuity of labor relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for three months during the three-month period “from July 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007” and “from December 24, 2009 to September 23, 2011” is not deemed to have been severed, and the identity or continuity thereof is recognized.

5) Since a two-year continuous work has already been recognized, a conversion to a indefinite work contract may be recognized if the Plaintiff is deemed to have worked additionally a day.

Note 6) This can be viewed as being clear in light of the unique nature of the fixed-term law that grants the legal effect of the establishment and formation of a contract for indefinite labor with respect to “a situation of use exceeding two years,” and the Defendant also expresses its opinion to the same effect.

Note 7) This is also a part that differs from that included in the number of years of continuous service for the calculation of retirement allowances, in principle, even if the period of suspension as an employee is in office.