logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.01.09 2019누49986
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be those resulting from the participation in the appeal;

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the use of 9-8 to 13-9 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

[Supplementary measures to determine whether a contract is a contract with no fixed period of time between the plaintiff and the intervenor or not. 1) Even if the contract is prepared by the worker and the employer when concluding the contract, if it is deemed that the contract is merely a form of a fixed period of time in full view of the contents of the contract, the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the contract, the purpose and the genuine intent of the party concerned, the practices regarding the method of concluding the contract of the same kind, the rules on the protection of workers, etc., the contract was concluded without a fixed period of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du625, May 29, 1998; 98Du625, Feb. 24, 2006; 2005Du5673, Feb. 24, 2006).

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the period of work under the first, second, and third employment contract is merely a type of employment contract, and it is reasonable to view that the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor constitutes an employment contract with a fixed period of time. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor constitutes an employment contract with a fixed period of time.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) The proviso to Article 4 (1) of the second and third employment contracts shall be limited to "the term of a contract", and if a separate term of a contract is not fixed, the term of a contract shall not be fixed after entry.

arrow