2015Gudan1199 Revocation of Disposition to Reject the payment of employment promotion subsidy

A

The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul East Site

November 19, 2015

November 26, 2015

1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the payment of employment promotion subsidy granted to the Plaintiff on June 24, 2014 is revoked. 2. The litigation cost is borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff newly employed C on January 3, 2014, as the representative of the Btax accounting office located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant office”), and applied for the payment of employment promotion subsidy to the Defendant on June 13, 2014.

B. On June 24, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to not pay employment promotion subsidies to the Plaintiff on the ground that C is an employer with a fixed term of employment contract (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7 through 10, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff employed C as a regular worker: Provided, That only one-year employment contract period is stipulated in practice in order to indicate the calculation period of annual salary in the employment contract prepared by the Plaintiff at the time of employing C.

As such, even though the Plaintiff and C concluded a regular employment contract with each other, the instant disposition by the Defendant, which did not accept the Plaintiff’s application by deeming C as a contractual worker on the sole basis of the formal description of the period of the employment contract stipulated in the employment contract, is unlawful

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) From December 2014, the Plaintiff issued a recruitment notice to recruit regular workers to work at the instant office on the Internet employment site from around December 2014.

2) C, after completing the course of employment success and key conducted by the Ministry of Employment and Labor, identified the recruitment notice paid by the Plaintiff, and supported the instant office by stating the type of employment as a regular employee on December 27, 2013.

3) On January 6, 2014, the Plaintiff and C confirmed that C will be employed as regular workers, and drafted a written employment contract. However, Article 2(1)2 of the employment contract written at the time stated that “the term of employment contract was from January 3, 2014 to January 2, 2015 (one year).” However, C did not consider any particular issue as the period for calculating annual salary and signed the said written employment contract.

4) The form of the employment contract written by the Plaintiff and C was used for about ten years in the instant office, and all D or E, who worked in the instant office, was prepared in the past, and worked in the instant office with the intention of full-time workers.

5) After entering into a labor contract with C, the Plaintiff: (a) made an employment insurance contract; (b) made a report on the acquisition of the insured status; and (c) submitted it to the Defendant with indication that C is not a contractual

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 6, 11 through 13 (including each number), Eul's testimony, the whole purport of pleading

C. Determination

As long as a disposition document, such as a written contract, is deemed to have been duly formed, it is reasonable to recognize the existence of an expression of intent and the contents thereof in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document. However, if it is evident and acceptable to interpret the contents differently, or if it is proved that there is an express or implied agreement different from the contents stated therein between the parties, it may exceptionally be recognized as different from

According to the facts of the above recognition and the purport of the entire argument, even though the Plaintiff and C concluded an employment contract on the premise that it would work as a full-time employee in the office of this case from the public notice of employment to the conclusion of the employment contract, they would be deemed to have prepared the above employment contract by misunderstanding the meaning of the employment contract period stipulated in the employment contract to the annual salary calculation

If such a circumstance exists, notwithstanding the formal content of the term of the employment contract, which is a disposal document, it is reasonable to interpret that the Plaintiff and C have entered into the employment contract from the beginning as a full-time employee without setting the term of the contract. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed C to be a worker whose term of the contract is fixed is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

Judge So-young