The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Article 4 (1) (main sentence) and (2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”) stipulate that if an employer employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years, the fixed-term worker shall, in principle, be regarded as an employee who has entered into an employment contract

This provision shall also apply to agencies of the State or local governments (Article 3(3) of the Fixed-term Act): Provided, That the proviso of Article 4(1)5 of the Fixed-term Act provides that the employer may employ fixed-term workers for more than two years in cases where the job is offered in accordance with the government's welfare policies and unemployment measures.

Accordingly, Article 3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-term Workers Act provides jobs to develop the vocational ability of the people, promote employment, and provide necessary services socially in accordance with other statutes, such as the Framework Act on Employment Policy and the Employment Insurance Act, as one of the exceptions to the restriction on the period of use of fixed-term workers delegated by Article 4(1)5 of the Fixed-Term Workers Act.

Public services provided by the state or local governments to citizens or residents have the nature of social necessary services due to their essential characteristics.

Therefore, in a case where the state or a local government provides jobs for public services, whether it falls under the proviso of Article 5(1)5 of the Fixed-term Act and Article 3(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-term Act should be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances such as the background, purpose and character of the relevant project, the continuity and sustainability of the project, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18585, Dec. 26, 2012). B.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the lower court, based on its reasoning, is against the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.