All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that “the Plaintiff was dispatched to the Defendant’s work site and dispatched workers under the Defendant’s direction and supervision is justifiable.”

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the temporary agency relationship as prescribed by the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers

B. Article 6-2(1) of the Dispatch Act provides that “If a user company continues to use a temporary agency worker for more than two years, the relevant temporary agency worker shall be employed directly.”

(hereinafter referred to as “direct employment obligation provision”). Since a user company who violates the restriction on the period of secondment is obligated to directly employ a temporary agency worker under the direct employment obligation provision, a temporary agency worker has a right to seek a judgment claiming against the user company in lieu of the user company’s expression of intent of employment if the user company fails to perform the direct employment obligation, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, a direct employment relationship exists between

In addition, the temporary agency worker can claim damages equivalent to the wages until the direct employment relationship is established for the user company's non-performance of the direct employment obligation.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da14965, Nov. 26, 2015). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, the lower court bears the Defendant’s obligation to employ the temporary agency worker pursuant to the direct employment obligation provision, and the Plaintiffs, who are the temporary agency workers, claim for direct employment against the Defendant.