1. The main text of Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “the Act”) stipulate that where an employer employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years, such fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time (Article 3(3) of the Act). This provision also applies to the State or any local government’s institutions (Article 3(3)5 of the Act). However, Article 3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the employer may employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years in cases where a job is offered in accordance with the government’s welfare policies, unemployment measures, etc. as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 3(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides for an exception to the restriction on the period of use of a fixed-term worker delegated under the proviso to Article 4(1)5 of the Act.

Public services provided by the State or a local government to citizens or residents have the nature of social necessary services due to their inherent nature. Therefore, where the State or a local government provides jobs for public services, whether it falls under the proviso to Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act and Article 3 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the background, purpose and character of the relevant project, the continuity and sustainability of the project, etc.

2. According to the facts and evidence duly established by the court below, the following facts are revealed.

A. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism extended the opening time of a public library as one of the social job creation projects, and provided library services to employees who are difficult to use the library during the low time, and subsidized personnel expenses and operating expenses of the public library as government subsidies in order to contribute to the expansion of the user class. The Defendant’s supplementary intervenor (hereinafter “participating”) received 50% of personnel expenses and operating expenses from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism as government subsidies, and implemented the “public library opening time extension project” from January 2008.

B. The purpose of the extension of public library operation policy notified by the Gyeonggi-do Governor to the intervenors, etc. is “to contribute to the expansion of library access classes through the extension of opening hours of public libraries as one of the public library creation projects.” The purpose of the extension of opening hours of public libraries is to stipulate that the fixed-term worker employed for the extension of opening hours of public libraries is eligible for the exception to the conversion of indefinite contract workers as he/she uses human resources through the provision of jobs in accordance with the government’s welfare policies, unemployment measures, etc. Meanwhile, the notice of the decision to grant national/Do subsidies related to the extension of opening hours of Gyeonggi-do requires cooperation to ensure that the vulnerable class (persons under duty to support, unemployed, etc.) is preferentially selected among the human resources to be employed for the relevant project. Accordingly, the intervenor specified “persons eligible for employment protection, support, and low-income group” in the employment announcement, such as fixed-term workers for the extension of opening of public library operated by the Gyeonggi-do. In relation to the above project, the intervenor was also subject

C. The intervenor commenced the above business and suspended the employment of the existing worker on a daily basis, and employed workers following the extension of the opening of the library, including the central library operated by the intervenor every year through open employment.

D. On January 208, 2008, an intervenor entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff that was selected through the procedures for public disclosure of documents screening and interview and concluded an annual fixed-term employment contract with the Plaintiff through the same procedures each year during the period of 2009 and 2010. On December 3, 2010, the intervenor notified the Plaintiff on December 31, 2010 that the employment contract is terminated on a yearly basis. Although the Plaintiff applied for an employment examination for fixed-term workers in 2011, the Plaintiff was not employed due to low interview scores. The Plaintiff received retirement allowances from the Intervenor whenever the annual contract period expires.

3. In light of the relevant statutes and legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Intervenor’s employment as a fixed-term worker constitutes “the case of providing jobs to provide social necessary services in accordance with welfare policies, unemployment measures, etc.” as stipulated under the proviso of Article 4(1)5 of the Act and Article 3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Intervenor’s employment of the public library opening time extension project implemented by the State subsidy was promoted for the primary purpose of creating jobs by fostering citizens’ sentiments, which is the user of the service, and by employing human resources necessary for the opening of social services; (b) the Intervenor was subject to audit by the Board of Audit and Inspection on the status of promoting social services and job creation projects; and (c) the status of the Intervenor’s employment of the Intervenor’s employment as a fixed-term worker upon the premise of the State subsidy subsidy support; and (d) the Intervenor’s employment of the Intervenor as a fixed-term worker is reasonable. Therefore, the Intervenor’s employment of the Plaintiff as a

In the same purport, the court below is proper to maintain the first instance court that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim of this case on the premise that the Intervenor’s extension of the opening hours of the public library of this case does not constitute an exception to the restriction on the fixed-term workers’ use period, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the exception to the restriction on the use period of fixed-term workers under the proviso of Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act and Article 3 (2) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part arising from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)