[부당해고구제재심판정취소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
Ansan-si (Law Firm Subdivision, Attorneys Yoon Jung-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap25920 decided December 1, 2011
June 27, 2012
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On July 14, 201, the Central Labor Relations Commission revoked the judgment of the first instance court rendered on the application case of unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant for the retrial on July 2011.
The reasoning of the first instance judgment is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited on the ground of this case pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and below, the plaintiff emphasizes again in the appellate court.
The plaintiff asserts that the "extension of social services and job creation", which is the promotion background of the public library opening time extension project, are merely limited to the general administrative purpose of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act and Article 16 (1) 7 of the former Library and Reading Promotion Act do not correspond to the "Acts" under Article 3 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-Term Library Act, and Article 3 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-Term Library Act is an infringed area, and there is no exception to the restriction on the fixed-term worker employment period, considering the fact that other Acts and subordinate statutes
However, as indicated in the first instance judgment cited earlier, the intervenor conducted a “library opening hours extension project” at the central library operated by the central government subsidized from January 2008 for the purpose of expanding social services and creating jobs, and discontinued the employment of the worker as a temporary worker and employed the plaintiff et al. as a one-year fixed-term worker. As such, it is reasonable to view that the employment of a part-time worker constitutes a case of providing jobs for the purpose of providing social necessary services in accordance with Article 28(1) of the Framework Act on Employment Policy. Therefore, there is an exception to the restriction on the period of use of fixed-term workers under Article 4(1)5 of the Fixed-term Workers Act and Article 3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-term Workers Act. The plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable without examining any further.
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.
Judges Ansan-jin (Presiding Judge)