Plaintiff 1 and 25 others (Law Firm, Attorneys Jeon Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kimcheon-si (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Go Young-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 13, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiffs confirm that they are in the position of the members of the Kimcheon Arts Group under the defendant. The defendant shall pay to each plaintiff the amount of money listed in the attached Table 1 Schedule A, the amount with 20% interest per annum from the day after the day of service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, and the amount with the rate of money listed in the attached Table 1 Schedule B from February 2014 to the day of each plaintiff's reinstatement.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. In accordance with the Ordinance on the Establishment and Operation of the Gimcheon Arts Group (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”), the Defendant establishes and operates the Kimcheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon, Kimcheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si, Kimcheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon (hereinafter “instant Arts Group”). The Plaintiffs as well as the members of the instant Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Macheon-si Ma

B. The Plaintiffs concluded an appointment contract with the Defendant on a two-year basis on the corresponding date indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 list, and participated in the instant teachers’ group as non-permanent members upon a regular rating whenever the period expires. Ultimately, the period of commission was fixed from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 201 and the Intervenor did not re-commission the Plaintiffs on January 31, 201 (hereinafter “instant refusal to re-commission”). However, the Intervenor’s market did not re-commission the Plaintiffs on which the period of commission expires (hereinafter “instant refusal”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the rejection of the re-commission of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) ① The instant Ordinance separates the appointment of a new member and the procedures for re-commissioning of an existing member; ② Article 8(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Ordinance provides that re-commissioning shall be guaranteed if the amount of skill is not significantly lowered as a result of a performance evaluation; ③ the operation of the instant training group is a regular and continuous business of the Defendant; ④ the operation of the instant training group is a regular and continuous business of the Defendant; ④ there is only one person who has refused re-commissioning according to a regular rating, and the Plaintiffs have been re-commissioned several times, even if the period of appointment expires, the Defendant refused re-commissioning through an evaluation that lacks objectivity and fairness, which is invalid.

2) Therefore, even after February 1, 2011, the Plaintiffs are still in the position of members of the instant teaching group, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the wages as stated in paragraph (2) of the claim.

B. Relevant provisions

As shown in attached Table 3 (Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A No. 5 and 6).

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The instant teaching group was first established on December 1, 2004. The period of commissioning members of the instant teaching group is two years, and the Defendant conducted a regular performance evaluation for the members every two years in accordance with Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Municipal Ordinance and conducted re-commissioning according to the result. The instant teaching group did not refuse re-commissioning for the existing members prior to the refusal of re-commissioning.

2) The process of conducting the instant open screening and of refusing to re-commission the instant case

A) On November 8, 2010, the Defendant held a steering committee of the instant art group and decided to the effect that “the existing members whose commission period expires in relation to the recruitment of members in 2011 shall not be re-commissioned, and shall be selected through a new screening process,” and the Defendant established a plan to recruit non-permanent members of the instant art group through practical skills (or document screening) and interview screening on November 23, 2010.

B) On December 30, 2010, the Defendant: (a) issued a “Public Notice of Recruitment for the 201 Kimcheon Arts Group (Non-permanent)” (hereinafter “Public Notice”); and (b) demanded 59 existing non-permanent members of the 201 Teaching Team whose appointment period expires as of January 31, 201, to apply for the instant Public Notice for the Public Notice for the appointment of members in 2011 (hereinafter “instant Public Notice”).

C) The instant public notice requires “a person whose address is Daegu and North Korea as of the date of the public notice” as a common application for examination. In relation to the instant public notice group, the screening point was “80% + interview examination 20%.” In the case of each musical instrument, two or eight practical or group were presented for each musical instrument, and in the case of the existing group, two or more separate screening valleys were selected by the examiners from among the pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing pre-existing preexistings. A large number of the pre-existing pre-existing prestigious pres in each musical instrument were led to a regular pre-existing prestigious group, etc. In the case of the instant prestigious group. For financial reasons, the Defendant abolished the instant restigpt and excluded the instant restigb at the time of the public notice from the field of application.

D) The Defendant was recommended by the head of the nationwide local government, the head of the university, and the head of the Do/Si art group for the examination of the open screening process of this case. The Defendant commissioned the conductor and university professor of the instant lecture group as an examiner.

E) The Defendant conducted the instant open screening from January 17, 201 to January 18, 201. At the instant open screening, 127 applicants (54 of the existing 59 members of the Interdivers group of this case + 73 of the new applicants). Total 47 applicants (26 of the existing members + 21 of the new applicants) passed the open screening.

F) As of the date of publication, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 14, and Plaintiff 21, who had been in charge of tubes among the pre-existing members of the instant Order, failed to apply for the instant open screening due to lack of qualifications to apply for each of them. Plaintiff 5 did not apply for the instant open screening at his own option. The rest of the Plaintiffs submitted an application on January 1, 201, and applied for the instant open screening, but the points did not reach the order of recruitment for each of the fields, and failed to pass the examination.

G) On February 1, 2011, the Defendant re-commissioned the successful applicants among the existing members and re-commissioned the successful applicants (the period of commission: from February 1, 2011 to January 31, 2013; 2 years).

3) Details of the relevant lawsuit

A) The Plaintiffs filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal that the rejection of the re-commissioning of this case constitutes an unfair dismissal. On May 9, 201, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the application for remedy by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant initial inquiry court”). Accordingly, the Defendant filed a request for reexamination, and the National Labor Relations Commission accepted the request for retrial on August 16, 201 on the ground that the Plaintiffs do not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

B) The Plaintiffs filed an administrative litigation against the said ruling on reexamination, and the Seoul Administrative Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims on the same grounds as the ruling on reexamination on June 21, 2012 (Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap30687).

C) The Plaintiffs filed an appeal, and the Seoul High Court: (a) revoked the above first instance judgment on March 13, 2013 on the grounds that “the commission of the members of the Defendant market to the instant order of classical class constitutes a labor contract under public law; and accordingly, the Plaintiffs constituted a contracting official under the Local Public Officials Act, who is a worker under the Labor Standards Act; and (b) revoked the review decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission (Seoul High Court 2012Nu24230). The said appellate judgment was finalized on July 15, 2013.

D) According to the purport of the above judgment, the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the first inquiry court of this case and revoked the Plaintiffs’ request for remedy on September 6, 2013, on the ground that “The right to expect to be re-commissioned upon the expiration of the contract period is recognized, but there is a reasonable ground for rejection of renewal.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 11, 16, 17 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In principle, the status of a worker who entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time shall be naturally terminated upon the expiration of the contract and shall be automatically retired even if there is no declaration of refusal to renew the contract if the contract is not renewed. However, even though the term expires in the employment contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. provides that the contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements despite the expiration of the contract. In full view of various circumstances surrounding the employment relationship, such as the motive and circumstances where the contract is concluded with the contents of the contract, the standards for renewal of the contract, etc., whether the contract is established or not and the status of the contract is established, and the contents of the work performed by the worker, etc., if the contract is deemed to be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements between the parties to the contract, the trust relationship that the contract shall be renewed is formed, and the employer's refusal to renew the contract in violation of this provision has no effect as it is unfair, and the employment relationship after the expiration of the contract is the same as the renewal of the previous contract (Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1729, Apr. 14, 2011).

2) Whether the right to expect re-commission to the plaintiffs is recognized

Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances can be known in this case by adding the purpose of the entire argument to the above fact of recognition: ① The term of appointment of the member of the school group of the school group of this case is two years under Article 9(2) of the Ordinance, but Article 9(3) of the Ordinance provides that "the member whose term of appointment has expired may be re-commissioned through screening of screening members," thereby recognizing the possibility of re-commissioning and establishing requirements and procedures for re-commissioning (However, it does not specify the method of implementing the screening of the former member). ② The defendant re-commissions the plaintiffs every two years according to the results of regular performance evaluation. ② The defendant did not refuse re-commissions among the existing members of the school group of the school group of this case before the date of the instant case; ④ Article 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the instant Municipal Ordinance provides that the number of members whose term of appointment has significantly decreased according to the results of actual evaluation is subject to the appointment of position, etc. or dismissal, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs are re-commissioned members of this case' trust agreement.

3) Whether there is a reasonable ground for refusal to re-commission

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 14, and 15 (including each number), and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s failure to apply for the open screening of this case, and the result of the open screening of this case, which led to the failure of the Defendant to apply for the open screening of this case, there is a reasonable ground for not re-commissioning the remaining plaintiffs as members of the school meal group of this case.

① The Defendant: (a) formulated the instant open screening plan; (b) prepared the instant open screening process; (c) conducted practical examinations and interviews for applicants, including existing members; and (d) among the Plaintiffs, those who applied for the open screening process of this case did not reach the ranking of applicants by field.

② Article 9(3) of the instant Ordinance only provides that the re-commissions of the existing members whose appointment period has expired shall be construed as “may be re-commissioned through screening by a screening by a screening by a screening member,” but does not impose any obligation on the Defendant to re-commissioned an existing member, and does not impose any restrictions on the specific methods of implementing the above “arching by a screening by a screening member.” As such, the Defendant, who is the person establishing and operating the instant teaching group, has the discretion to determine whether to re-commissioned the existing member and the method of implementing screening for its examination.

③ Considering the characteristics of the instant sub-committee operated with the Defendant’s budget funding for the purpose of fostering citizens’ sentiments and promoting local culture, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s application for the instant open screening process is unreasonable to limit the application to the persons residing in Daegu and North Korea regions, and to adjust the organization of the sub-committee according to budgetary circumstances.

④ Considering the above characteristics, the defendant does not necessarily re-commission the existing members in organizing and operating the instant Order, but it is necessary to select members with an outstanding annual frequency and heat by providing them with opportunities for fair competition among local residents, and maintain and improve the level of the instant Order. The open screening process of this case, which selected members through practical examination and interview with applicants, seems to be a reasonable method consistent with the above purport.

⑤ At the end of 2009, the choir, the Korean music group, and the Korean Epic Group had submitted a written pledge to the head of the instant artistic group to the effect that “the members of the instant art group, including the Plaintiffs, were able to raise the allowances of the members of the above three organizations through their own meetings and gathering opinions, and through the conductor, the musical director, the musical director, and the single-class joint meeting, but at the same time, there were different grades of the members through self-evaluation, and finally agreed on a restructuring plan to adjust the number of the members, and finally submitted the proposal to the head of the instant artistic group.” However, the members of the instant art group, including the Plaintiffs, were aware of the possibility of changing the re-commissioning process before the instant public notice. In addition, some Plaintiffs and the remaining Plaintiffs, other than the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff 5, were also applying for the open screening process in this case.

6) A considerable number of the proposals for practical examination of the instant open screening process is deemed to have more favorable to the Plaintiffs, who worked as the existing members by the instant open screening process, with the celebs with which the instant open screening process had been initiated by the tobacco conference. In fact, the passing rate of the existing members (26 out of 54) was higher than the passing rate of the new applicants (21 out of 73 persons).

7) Through the instant open screening process, a large number of the existing members of the Education Society except the Plaintiffs were re-commissioned, and the Defendant does not seem to have any reason to refuse re-commissioning by specifying the Plaintiffs among the existing members.

8) No other circumstances exist to deem that the instant open screening method or the instant open screening process lacks objectivity or fairness.

4) Sub-committee

If so, the plaintiffs' claims on different premise are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)