Plaintiff and appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant, Appellant

Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yang LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Conclusion of Pleadings

August 26, 2016

The first instance judgment

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da575247 Decided June 16, 2016

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015 confirms that the dismissal of the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015 is null and void. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5,90,100 won with 6% per annum from August 3, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

Reasons

The reasoning of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and therefore, it is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. [On the other hand, in order to determine the period necessary for the completion of a specific business or the completion of a specific business, the plaintiff must first examine whether the defendant has used the plaintiff for at least two consecutive years. However, in order to fall under the exception of Article 4 (1) 1 of the Fixed-term and Part-Time Workers Act as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited in this judgment, it is satisfied if the employer uses the worker to determine "necessary period" in the "the completion of a specific business or the completion of a specific business." Since the plaintiff's assertion can not be seen as falling under the applicable requirements of Article 4 (1) 1 of the Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers Act, the plaintiff's assertion is without any further reason.