1. From May 7, 2004, the plaintiff confirmed that he was the defendant's worker status.

2. The Defendant on January 1, 2018, to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a corporation that manages and operates Jeju International Airport since its establishment in accordance with the Korea Airports Corporation Act on March 2, 2002. The plaintiff is a person who entered into a contract with the defendant on Jeju International Airport B services and worked as D treatment personnel within Jeju International Airport upon entering into the first employment contract on May 7, 2002.

The service company of Jeju International Airport B was changed in order from the previous company E, F, G, and H to the company I on February 1, 2017.

(1) The Plaintiff concluded each labor contract with the instant service company by means of succession to employment and continued to work as a D treatment personnel at the Jeju State’s provision. While the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the instant service company and continued to work as a D treatment personnel, the Plaintiff refused to renew the contract from Company I and served until December 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (the number of branch numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole argument of the parties concerned, the plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the service company of this case, but the plaintiff had been engaged in the same D treatment personnel with the employees belonging to the defendant at the Jeju State provision port since the first employment time. The defendant was ordered, supervised and trained the work, received the defendant's direct management of the work hours, place, leave, etc., and received equipment and goods related to the work from the defendant.

The substance of the Plaintiff’s labor provision relationship is the temporary placement relationship with the Defendant as the user company.

Therefore, the Defendant continued to use the Plaintiff as the temporary agency worker for more than two years, thereby violating the restriction on the period of secondment under the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter “former Dispatch Act”).