The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a school foundation operating Gwangju Metropolitan City B, and the plaintiff was employed as a contract worker on November 24, 2014 and performed the maintenance and repair of the telephone line in the Gu B, and was converted into a full-time employee of the defendant on March 31, 2019.

From December 1, 1998 to November 201, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) for the business of maintaining and repairing internal communications between C and B, and entered into a contract with D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) for the said business from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014.

(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings has been carried out by the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of each of the instant contracts as to the maintenance and repair of telephone communications lines as the contractor of each of the instant contracts from September 200 to November 201, 204.

Each of the instant contracts by the Defendant, C, and D constitutes a contract for temporary placement of workers under the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Dispatched Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter “former Dispatch Act”) (hereinafter “former Dispatch Act”), and under the foregoing Act when citing the name of the said Act, the contract constitutes a contract for temporary placement of workers.

According to Article 6 (2) of the former Dispatch Act, a temporary agency worker shall be deemed to have directly employed the plaintiff on September 10, 2002, which is the day following the second anniversary of September 200 when the plaintiff started to work for the defendant under the direction of the defendant who is the user company.

The plaintiff was paid the above regular salary class 3 of October 2002, and thereafter, the promotion of salary class was made in accordance with the defendant's wage regulations, resulting in 20 salary class as of July 22, 2020, which was the date of closing argument in the appellate court of this case.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the first employment date for the plaintiff.