2011 Gohap6197 Nullification of dismissal

○○ 19 persons

○○ Plant Co., Ltd.

September 27, 2011

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On January 31, 2011, the Defendant confirms that dismissal made against the Plaintiffs on January 31, 201 is null and void. The Defendant separate against the Plaintiffs.

shall pay the amount stated in the wage claim table.

1. Basic facts

가. 피고는 예정 공사기간 2009. 7. 7. 부터 2013. 9. 30. 까지의 ○○○ 원자력 3호기 ▷▷건물 배관설치공사 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 공사 ' 라 한다 ) 를 시공하는 회사이고, 원고들은 피고와 근로계약을 체결하고 이 사건 공사 현장의 용접, 배관, 제관, 비계팀 등에서 근무한 근로자들이다 .

B. From July 2009, the Plaintiffs entered into each employment contract with the Defendant in sequential order, and the contract period between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was set out as of the first day of each month until the last day of each month.

C. The Plaintiffs are between the Defendant and the Defendant during the contract period from December 1, 2010 to January 31, 2011.

1. Each labor contract was concluded between the 31st day of the same month and the 31st day of the same month, and the defendant was working for the defendant.

12. 31. The following was publicly announced to workers at the construction site of this case including the plaintiffs.

Gong300

1. Object: All employees (offices and field employees);

2. Time: From January 31, 201, it shall be enforced;

3. The number of persons: Reduction by at least 40 percent;

4. Other: The remaining number of persons is scheduled to enter into an employment contract in February of the same year until January 20, 2011, and the uncontractor will terminate the natural contract as of January 31, 201.

D. On January 201, 201, the Defendant announced the list of persons subject to re-contract, as stated above. According to the above list, 86 out of 139 workers at the instant construction site became eligible for re-contracts, and the remaining 53 workers, including the Plaintiffs, were excluded from those subject to re-contracts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The contract term from the first day of each month to the last day of each month stipulated in the above employment contract is merely a formal one, and the defendant promised to employ the plaintiffs from July 2009 to September 2013, which is the construction period of this case, so the defendant's refusal of the employment contract with the plaintiffs after January 31, 201 is an unfair dismissal. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay wages to the plaintiffs as shown in the annexed wage claim sheet.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Considering the variable nature of construction business, it is difficult to see that the contract period stipulated in the above contract period is merely a formal one. Thus, each contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was terminated as a matter of course on January 31, 201 when the contract period expires.

3. Determination

In a case where a contract is prepared with a fixed period of time, for example, where the fixed period of a short-term employment contract becomes merely a type of a contract, such as where the contract is repeatedly renewed over a long period of time, and the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the contract setting the period, practices on the method of concluding the same kind of employment contract, workers protection regulations, etc., the employer’s refusal to conclude a renewed contract without justifiable grounds in a case where it is deemed merely a form of a fixed period of time, notwithstanding the language of the contract, shall be null and void as in the case of dismissal. However, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the fixed period of the contract is merely a form as above, a labor relationship between the parties to the contract shall naturally be terminated without separate measures such as dismissal of the employer upon the expiration of the contract period (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1729, Apr. 14,

In the case of this case, the fact that the term of the contract was set as one month from the beginning of each month to the end of each month is as seen earlier, and that the above basic facts and the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 above are considered as a whole and the purport of the argument as a whole. In other words, it is acknowledged that it is necessary to conclude a short-term employment contract because it is difficult to easily predict the change of the number of workers due to the characteristics of the construction work, namely, the necessity of concluding a short-term employment contract because the construction period is inevitable due to the nature of the construction work. The plaintiffs are serving in various types of work, such as the contact, pipes, pipes, pipes, and rains, and are able to diversify the number of necessary persons or the construction period for each type of work. In the case of other workers who work at the construction site of this case, a considerable number of cases can be confirmed, and the plaintiffs also have worked in most other construction sites after the termination of the employment contract with the defendant. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claim for the termination of the employment contract of this case does not exist.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-ok