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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles on restrictions on fixed-term workers

A. The main text of Article 4(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “fixed-Term Act”) provides that “An employer may appoint a fixed-term worker for a period not exceeding two years (in cases of repeated renewal, etc. of a fixed-term employment contract, to the extent that the total period of continuous employment does not exceed two years).” The proviso of paragraph (1) provides that “If an employer employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of the grounds under the proviso of paragraph (1), the fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed-term employment contract.”

"Cases where a period necessary for the completion of a business or the completion of a specific business is determined" where an employer may employ a fixed-term worker for more than two years pursuant to the proviso to Article 4 (1) 1 of the Fixed-term Work Act means cases where the contract period is determined by the time the business or a specific business is anticipated to be terminated after an objective period, such as construction works, a specific program development, or a business for the completion of a project, etc.

An employer can, in principle, use a fixed-term worker only for a period of two years, and if the total period of employment of a fixed-term worker exceeds two years, a fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee without a fixed-term worker, and the legislative purport of Article 4 of the Fixed-term Workers Act is to ensure the status of an employee by preventing abuse of a fixed-term employment contract.