Korea Railroad Corporation (Law Firm Han & Yang LLC, Attorney Kang Sang-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant joining the Defendant (Attorney Choi Sung-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

March 31, 2011

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap887 decided September 10, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the decision that the National Labor Relations Commission revoked the decision of retrial made on November 24, 2009 between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) with respect to the case of application for reexamination of unfair dismissal filed on November 24, 2009.

1. Status of parties and circumstances leading to the decision on retrial;

A. The Plaintiff, a government-invested institution established on December 31, 2004 by the Korea Railroad as a government-invested institution established on December 31, 2004, has its head office in the said domicile, and is engaged in railroad transportation, vehicle maintenance, etc. by using 32,000 full-time workers at its head office and branch offices

B. On July 6, 200, the Intervenor was employed as a contractual worker 6 in the Korea Railroad on the part of July 6, 2000. On January 1, 2005, the Intervenor was notified from the Plaintiff on May 22, 2009 that the term of the labor contract will expire as of June 30, 2009, while the Plaintiff’s contractual worker was transferred to the status and succeeded to employment as an employee of class 3 of the Plaintiff’s contractual worker. The Intervenor was refused to renew the contract (hereinafter “instant refusal”).

C. On July 2, 2009, the Intervenor asserted that the refusal of the instant re-contract was unfair, and filed an application for unfair dismissal with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission). On August 25, 2009, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission determined that the refusal of the instant re-contract constitutes unfair dismissal, and that on August 25, 2009, the Intervenor would have been paid the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the Intervenor was reinstated to the former position and had worked normally during the period of dismissal.

D. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Du872), but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision dismissing the above application for reexamination on November 24, 2009 (hereinafter “instant decision for reexamination”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the decision of the retrial in this case is unlawful for the following reasons, although the plaintiff's purport that "the intervenor's right to expect renewal is recognized as the right to expect renewal of the contract in this case and there is no reasonable ground to refuse renewal of the contract in this case."

1) According to the enforcement of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term Workers and Part-time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Workers Protection Act”), the “legal doctrine on the right to expect renewal of a fixed-term worker” recognized by the Supreme Court precedents prior to its enforcement was no longer applicable. If a fixed-term worker is deemed to have continuously applied the said legal doctrine, if his/her fixed-term worker is re-contracted in accordance with the right to expect renewal of a contract and his/her work period exceeds two years, he/she shall be deemed to have entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time in accordance with Article 4 of the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers Act. This is beyond the guarantee of renewal of contract, which is the original purpose of the right

2) Even if the legal principle of the right to expectation of re-contract can be applied even after the enforcement of the fixed-term worker protection law, the Plaintiff is not entitled to expectation of re-contract for the Intervenor, taking into account the following: (a) the Plaintiff employed the Intervenor as a professional worker for the purpose of accumulating internal work experience with the help of those with professional knowledge in the situation of lack of experience in performing duties concerning cyber education; (b) the rules of employment regarding extension of contract are merely to prepare a reasonable renewal procedure; and (c) it cannot be deemed that the right to expectation of re-contract is derived; (d) in light of the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers and the Plaintiff’s measures accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s genuine intent at the time of entering into a labor contract is recognized as the burden of transition to full-time workers by the enforcement of the Act and can terminate the labor contract before the lapse of two years by the enforcement of the Act; and (e) the Intervenor is also aware that the Intervenor may not have continuous

3) Even if the Intervenor’s right to expectation of re-contract is recognized, as the Intervenor’s business itself lost the need to continue existence, there is a reasonable reason to refuse to renew the contract to the Plaintiff.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) On July 6, 200, the Intervenor recognized the expertise in cyber education and served as teaching staff (contract 6) at the Administrative Training Department of the Railroad Management Training Institute under the Korea Railroad, a telegraphic body of the Plaintiff, and transferred to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2005, the Plaintiff’s contract-based employees was transferred to the Plaintiff on January 1, 2005. Since the Plaintiff’s contract-based employees were transferred to the Plaintiff, the Intervenor entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff on a one-year basis, and the matters of personnel assignment from the time of the Intervenor’s entry to the time of the instant refusal to renew the contract are as follows

On July 6, 2000, the affairs related to the issuance of a direct order as of July 1, 200, the contract worker No. 6 of the contract worker No. 6 on July 1, 2001, the administrative training division of the Korea Railroad Manpower Development Institute of the Contract worker No. 6 on July 1, 2001, the " Contract worker No. 6" on July 1, 2002, the " Contract worker No. 6" on July 1, 2003, the contract worker No. 6 on July 1, 2004, the Director General of the Korea Railroad Manpower Development Institute of the Contract worker Development Institute of the Contract worker No. 3rd on July 1, 2005, the Deputy Director General of the Department of Digital Education for the Management of the Plaintiff Railroad Manpower Development Institute of the Contract worker No. 3rd on July 1, 2006, the "Special Class No. 3 of the Plaintiff Manpower Development Institute of the Contract worker Development Institute" on July 3, 2008.

2) On January 26, 2005, the Plaintiff enacted the “Operational Rules for Contract Employees” regarding the recruitment, service, personnel management, etc. of contract employees under Article 4(2) of the Personnel Management Regulations. Of them, the provisions pertaining to the period of employment and the termination of employment contracts are as follows.

Article 7 (Employment Period)

(1) The period of employment of contract-based employees shall be within the period necessary for the performance of the relevant project within the extent of three years, and contracts shall be concluded annually.

(2) Where it is deemed necessary to extend the contract period as a person who has excellent work performance after being employed as a contract worker, the employment period may be extended within the extent of two years without taking the procedure for public announcement under Article 12 (3).

(3) Where the contract period of a contracting officer is extended, it shall be renewed 30 days prior to the expiration date of the contract.

Article 10 (Termination of Employment Contracts)

(1) An employment contract shall be terminated automatically upon the expiration of the contract term.

3) On December 21, 2006, after the enforcement date of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Employees came into effect on July 1, 2007, the Plaintiff changed the name of the above "Operational Rules for Contract Employees" to the "Operational Rules for Contract Employees", and revised the provisions on the period of employment and the termination of the employment contract as follows. The Plaintiff stated that the purpose of the amendment is to stabilize the status of the Contract Employees.

Article 7 (Employment Period, etc.)

(1) The period of employment of professional staff members shall be the period necessary for the performance of the relevant duties or business, and they shall enter into a contract on a yearly basis: Provided, That where it is difficult to set the period for a long period of not less than one year, the contract shall be deemed to have been extended on a yearly basis, except in extenuating circumstances (referring to any subparagraph of Article 10 (2)) by limiting the term of the contract for the renewal contract after the expiration of

Article 10 (Termination of Employment Contracts)

(1) Deleted.

(2) Where any professional staff falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the president may terminate his/her employment contract: Provided, That in cases of subparagraphs 1 through 3 and 7, his/her employment contract shall be terminated:

1. Where any ground for disqualification under Article 5 is found after the employment contract;

2. Where he/she is deemed unable to perform his/her duties due to a criminal case or a criminal case;

3. Where the contract business is terminated or the continued business is extinguished; and

4. When he is unable to perform his duties due to physical or mental disability.

5. When he violates or neglects his duties, or when he falls short of the ability to perform his duties;

6. When he commits any act detrimental to his dignity as an employee of the Corporation.

7. When he violates Acts, subordinate statutes, articles of incorporation and provisions, or does not obey any justifiable order on duty;

8. Where it is difficult to achieve the purpose of the contract due to a breach of the contract.

(3) Where a contract is terminated pursuant to paragraph (2), it shall be notified in writing 30 days prior to such termination.

Article 17 (Evaluation of Work Performance)

(1) The status of employment and performance of duties of the employed professional workers shall be regularly assessed every one year after the contract is concluded, and when it is intended to extend and terminate the contract, adjust the amount of annual salary, or modify the contents of the contract, it may be assessed occasionally and reflected.

Article 18 (Evaluation Method)

(1) A professional staff member subject to evaluation shall prepare a performance evaluation report under attached Form 3 on the basis of a performance plan prepared at the time of concluding a contract at least 30 days prior to the termination of the contract, and shall evaluate the achievement level for each unit target (0-100%) and submit it to the immediate superior.

(2) The immediate superior shall, when an employee in a professional prepares and submits a statement of performance objectives, evaluate the degree of achievement of objectives by unit target (0-100%) and submit it to the Evaluation Committee along with the reduction of performance under Article 19.

(3) The Evaluation Committee shall prepare a statement of performance objectives under attached Form 4, referring to the evaluation of performance of each person subject to evaluation submitted by the immediate superior thereto, but shall assess the level of achievement of each unit target (0-100%).

Article 19 (Additional Points)

(1) The immediate superior officer may frequently check the status of the performance of the professional staff and, in cases where there are matters to be peculiar as a result of the inspection, he/she may grant a reduction of performance points (±within the range of five points), and where he/she grants additional results, he/she shall record the grounds therefor, such as the

Article 20 (Calculation of Final Rating Points and Criteria for Reflection) The calculation method and reflection criteria of the final Rating Point shall be as specified in attached Table 2.

[Attachment 2] Method and Criteria for Calculation and Reflection of Final Rating Points (Related to Article 20)

Periodical Reflection Criteria

The final rating point shall be reflected in the extension of contracts and the adjustment of remuneration of professional staff members in accordance with the following criteria:

- 75-84 3% reduction by 74 per year, which is not higher than 85, higher than 85, higher than the rate of remuneration adjustment for the contract period of the tickets included in the main sentence -

4) On June 22, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the employment of the Intervenor and the professional staff (five-year recontract) (five-year recontract) with the Intervenor, and prepared a written employment contract with the following contents in accordance with the operational rules of the said “professional staff.”

Article 2 (Duties in Charge and Performance Plans) During the contract period, the duties and performance goals to be borne by the Intervenor shall be as follows:

The term of contract under Article 3 (Period of Contract) shall be from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008: Provided, That it shall be deemed that the term of contract shall be extended on a yearly basis from the date following the expiration of the term of contract to the next one year from the date of termination of the term of contract, except in extenuating circumstances (within 74 points as a result of the evaluation of work performance and the subparagraphs of Article 10 (2) of the

Article 5 (Classification of Employment) Professionals (Grade III and 17) shall be employed.

Article 7 (Evaluation of Work Performance) The plaintiff shall conduct a regular evaluation of the intervenor's work performance on the basis of his/her duties and performance objectives referred to in Article 2, and shall conduct the final evaluation upon the expiration of the contract: Provided, That the interim evaluation may be conducted at the expiration of six months after the contract.

Article 8 (Termination of Contracts) The Plaintiff shall, when there are grounds falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 14 of the Rules of the Intervenor.

shall terminate the employment contract.

5) On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a new employment contract with the Intervenor for professional staff (hereinafter “instant employment contract”) (hereinafter “instant employment contract”), and the terms of the contract, classification of employment, and evaluation of work performance were modified as follows, among the terms of the employment contract entered into in 2007.

Article 3 (Term of Contract) The term of contract shall be from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009.

Article 5 (Classification of Employment) 1. Professional Class 3, 2. Basic annual salary: 34,272,000 won

Article 7 (Evaluation of Work Performance) The plaintiff shall be based on the duties and performance objectives referred to in Article 2.

A regular evaluation of work performance shall be conducted annually, and the final evaluation shall be conducted when the contract expires.

6) On December 22, 2008, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance announced the "Promotion Plan for the Advancement of the Fourth Public Agency" for the efficient management of the 69 public institutions including the Plaintiff. The promotion plan includes the Plaintiff's reduction of the prescribed number of 15.9% (5,115) as of November 2008 (32,092) based on the Plaintiff's small history management unmanned, ticket automation, etc., including the Plaintiff's reduction of the prescribed number of 15.9% (5,115) as of November 2, 2008. The Plaintiff planned to reduce the above promotion plan through labor-management consultation agenda prepared around April 2009, 4,400 remaining excluding the 5,115 reduction reduction in the year 208 and the 715 reduction in the prescribed number of employees without compulsory retirement.

7) However, when the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers, employs a fixed-term worker for more than two years, faces the situation where the employee should be converted to an indefinite-term worker. In accordance with the proviso of Article 4(1) of the same Act, the Plaintiff plans to uniformly refuse to renew the contract for the remaining professional workers, excluding those with doctor’s and other qualifications who can continue to work as a fixed-term worker for more than two years, and then notifies the termination of the contract at the expiration date. On May 29, 2009, the Plaintiff amended the following provisions regarding the employment period and the termination of the employment contract.

Article 8 (Employment Contracts)

(1) The employment contract of professional staff members shall be on an annual basis, and in cases of employing a prescribed period necessary for business or a specific performance of duties, the period necessary for such business or a specific performance of duties.

(3) Where an employee in a professional position is restricted to the period of use of a fixed-term worker pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers, he/she shall employ such worker within the extent

Article 10 (Termination of Employment Contracts)

(1) The employment contract of professional staff members shall terminate automatically, unless there exists any separate notice, such as extension of contract, 30 days prior to the expiration of the contract term.

Article 14 (Evaluation of Service Performance)

(1) A professional employee shall conduct an evaluation of his/her service performance every one year after employment and reflect it in the extension of the contract, adjustment of annual salary, etc.: Provided, That where the termination of the contract is anticipated, the evaluation shall not

Addenda ( May 29, 2009)

(2) The detailed rules shall be replaced by a professional staff member who serves after May 1, 2009 with his/her employment contract (new or renewed contract).

shall apply in any manner.

8) On the other hand, the content of the affairs borne by the Intervenor at the time of refusal of the instant re-contract is as follows.

A) Development of cyber subjects

An intervenor has been in charge of the development of cyber education content for the enhancement of job ability, and the process of conducting duties is conducted by making an online demand survey for students, making a budget compilation and request, deliberating on the feasibility and appropriateness of the project through the cyber education management committee, preparing a business plan, preparing an audit room's daily audit, making a contract request, selecting a business operator through technical and price assessment in accordance with the standards for concluding a contract through negotiations and the evaluation plan for proposals, correcting errors through tallying and file multiple tests, and applying for recognition of vocational skills development training courses.

B) Operation of cyber education (entrusted cyber and reading communications)

The intervenor has been in charge of the selection and operation of the entrusted curriculum to strengthen the common / job/information/IT global competence of the officers and employees of the Plaintiff, and the process of the work is to select the entrusted training institution in accordance with the plan for fostering human resources and to take charge of the training operation process

(C) establishing a remote training institution evaluation (Ministry of Labor and the Korea Vocational Skills Development Institute);

An intervenor has prepared and collected written evaluation data and field evaluation data in preparation for the "distance Training Institution Evaluation" annually conducted by the Ministry of Labor, and the process of conducting the evaluation shall be conducted by the method of public disclosure after submitting evaluation documents after the presentation of the evaluation project conducted by the Korea Occupational Ability Development Institute delegated by the Ministry of Labor, and after examining on the site evaluation, the results of the evaluation

(d)maintenance and repair (content, server, DB);

An intervenor has been in charge of maintenance and repair for the stable operation of educational affairs, the work process determines the method of disposal when maintenance and repair cases occur, implement maintenance and repair, and operate them again after the examination.Contents, server, school affairs management program, etc. among maintenance and repair objects are provided with the help of external employees, but contents and DB is a principle that self-maintenance and repair is conducted.

E) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s Human Resources Development Institute designated the task division of Human Resources Development Team on June 10, 2009 as follows.

Part III Intervenors specializing in the development and operation of the e-HD system (the development and operation of the e-HD system) (the development and operation of the e-HHD system) - the management of remote training (the maintenance and improvement of the e-HR system) institution inspection, etc. - the development and operation of the 3rd professor of the 3rd E-HRD system, the development and operation of the e-HR system - the development and operation of the e-HRD system - the development and operation of the e-HR system - the development and operation of the 3rd professor of the 3rd E-HR education system for the development and operation of the e-HR education system - the development and maintenance of the - maintenance and repair of the e-HR system and the improvement of the -L-HRD system - the management of

9) On December 31, 2003, the intervenor received an official commendation from the head of the Railroad Management Training Institute on the contribution to the development of railroad education and training, and received an official commendation from the head of the Korean National Railroad on June 30, 2004, and received an official commendation from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 18, 2008. In addition, the intervenor was recommended to be specially employed by the President of the Korea National Railroad Manpower Development Institute on behalf of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on the grounds of the contribution to the introduction of cyber education and the successful operation of the Railroad Manpower Development Institute.

10) The Plaintiff, after the Intervenor’s retirement, additionally placed regular employees and had them take charge of the duties of the Intervenor. The Intervenor worked for 12 days from July 2, 2009 to July 21, 2009, after the Intervenor’s rejection of the instant re-contract, and had the employees of the Human Resource Development Team take charge of the duties by correcting or processing errors that occurred in the course of performing the duties, along with the duty transfer, and even on the date of the Intervenor’s absence to work, the Intervenor attempted to resolve remote errors or handle the duties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4 through 8, Eul evidence 6 through 13, Eul evidence 15 through 19, Eul evidence 25, 26, 29, 31 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Whether the term of the instant employment contract was fixed or not

Even in a case where an employee and an employer prepare a written labor contract fixing a period of time when concluding a labor contract, if it is deemed that the period of time is merely a form of a contract by comprehensively taking into account the content of the written contract, the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the labor contract, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties concerned, practices regarding the conclusion of the same kind of labor contract, the rules on the protection of workers, etc., it shall be deemed that the written contract was concluded without a fixed period of time, notwithstanding the terms and conditions of the written contract. However, if the above circumstances are not acknowledged, it is in principle that the written contract, which is a disposal document, has a fixed period of time between the employee and the employer (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du5673, Feb. 24, 2006; 2005Du2247, Jul. 12, 2007,

As acknowledged earlier, the term of the contract of this case was two times before the contract of this case (7 times in total if the renewal is included in the Railroad Service), but the following facts revealed by the above facts are as follows: ① the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the intervenor, which stipulates the contract that the term of the contract is one year at all times, and the contract stipulates that it is impossible to extend the term of the contract when the Plaintiff’s detailed methods of service performance evaluation and certain points are below the contract's operating rules; ② the contract of this case entered into on June 22, 2007 by the Plaintiff and the intervenor is deemed to extend the term of the contract of this case; ② the contract of this case entered into on June 22, 2007 by providing that the extension of the term of the contract of this case shall be deemed to be impossible if the results of service performance evaluation are less than 74 points, ③ the Plaintiff conducts the evaluation of service performance for the professional contract workers such as the intervenor every year and reflects the decision of salary or annual salary after the renewal of the contract of this case.

2) Whether an intervenor is entitled to legitimate expectation of a re-contract

In principle, in cases of an employee employed with a contract term, his/her status as an employee shall be automatically terminated upon the expiration of the contract term, and if the renewal contract is not concluded, his/her status as an employee shall be automatically retired without going through special procedures, such as refusal of renewal. However, in cases where the employer bears the obligation to renew the contract term with the employee whose contract term expires in the contract or employment rules, etc., which are the basis for employment, or where the right of expectation is acknowledged to have the right of expectation to renew the contract in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the employer’s failure to conclude the renewal contract in violation of the procedure constitutes an unfair dismissal (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11566, Oct. 11, 207, etc.).

As such, the right to legitimate expectation of re-contracts is a right arising from the provisions related to re-contracts under the contract or rules of employment that serve as the basis for employment. Article 4 of the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers Act does not seem to be a provision that specifically limits the provisions related to re-contracts. Therefore, the implementation of the Protection Act for Fixed-Term Workers, which serves as the legislative intent to rectify unreasonable discrimination against fixed-term workers, etc. and to enhance the protection of working conditions for fixed-term workers, shall not be deemed

Of course, such interpretation may result in unreasonable consequences when a contract for more than one year was concluded prior to the date of promulgation of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers and both an employer and an employee could not anticipate that the contract will be converted into an inorganic contract for more than two years following the enforcement of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers, if the contract was terminated after the enforcement date of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers, and the re-contract was concluded following the recognition of the right to expectation of re-contract and the application of Article 4 of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers, and the period of use exceeds two years, and the contract is converted into an inorganic contract at the time when the contract exceeds two years. However, the result of the inorganic contract conversion does not directly lead to the principle of expectation of re-contract, but is in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term Workers. Therefore, the right to expectation of re-contract that has already occurred due to such circumstance cannot be denied or narrowly interpreted (the above unreasonable means should be resolved by means of layoff or termination

Therefore, in light of the foregoing facts and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Intervenor had the legitimate right to expect the re-contract at the time of the instant labor contract, in light of the health awareness as to whether the Intervenor had the right to expect the re-contract.

A) Each written employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor includes the content that the Intervenor’s work performance shall be regularly assessed each year, and the content that the contract will be terminated at the time of the expiration of the contract that there is a cause falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 10(2) of the Operational Rules. In fact, the Plaintiff conducted a work performance evaluation and entered into a re-contract with the Intervenor to obtain points available for re-contracts, and reflected the points in the annual salary determination. The Intervenor has been working for eight times each year, including the work period at the Railroad Agency, a telegraph of the Plaintiff, prior to the refusal of the

B) Article 17 of the operational rules for the Plaintiff’s professional staff at the time of the enforcement of the instant employment contract provides that “The status of service and performance of duties of the employed professional staff shall be regularly assessed every one year after the conclusion of the instant employment contract, but may be assessed and reflected from time to time when the contract is extended, terminated, the amount of annual salary is adjusted, and any other modification to the contents of the contract.” In addition, Articles 18 and 19 provide the method of evaluation, and Article 20 provides that the contract shall be extended if the final average point is at least 75 points as a result of the performance evaluation, and the contract shall be extended if the final average point is at least 75 points. In addition, it appears that the Intervenor was subject to a special recommendation on October 10, 2007 and it appears that the Intervenor was recognized as having contributed to the development of the railroad by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on September 18, 2008 after the conclusion of the instant employment contract.

C) The duties of the Intervenor are related to the planning and management of cyber education for the Plaintiff employees. In light of the nature of the duties, and the fact that the said duties are recognized as sustainable and that other regular employees are in charge of the pertinent duties even after the Intervenor’s retirement, it is difficult to deem that the Intervenor was temporarily employed for the purpose of introducing and establishing the cyber education system, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the labor relationship would have been terminated naturally upon the expiration of the contract period.

D) On December 29, 2006, immediately after the enactment of the Fixed-Term Workers Protection Act, the Plaintiff abolished the restrictions on the previous employment period (which may be extended by 2 years) by amending the Act on the Management of Professional Employees on December 29, 2006. The employment period of professional employees was the period needed to perform the pertinent duties or business, and the contract was entered into on a yearly basis. If it is difficult to set a certain period for more than 1 year, the contract period should be extended by 1 year, unless there are special reasons (the reasons of Article 10(2)) after the expiration of the initial contract period, and the contract period should be extended by 1 year, and it is difficult to view that the previous provisions on the cancellation of the employment contract as the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the employment contract shall be terminated by 1 year upon the expiration of the contract period.” In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s employment contract was for the guarantee of the status of professional employees, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor concluded the employment contract in this case to be concluded within 2 years prior to terminate.

E) After the plaintiff notified the intervenor of the termination of the contract, the rules for the operation of the professional staff amended on May 29, 2009 stipulate that the automatic extension of the contract term shall be deleted and terminated with the expiration of the contract term. In the event that the termination of the contract is anticipated, the evaluation shall not be conducted. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the amendment of the rules for employment unfavorable to the plaintiff, etc. has obtained the consent of the majority of the professional staff members such as the plaintiff, etc., and it shall not apply to the instant employment contract

3) Whether there are reasonable grounds for the refusal of the instant re-contract

As acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff, pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-Term Workers Protection Act, when employed a fixed-term worker for more than two years, faced with the situation where it should be converted to an in-house employee, and subsequently planned to refuse to renew the instant re-contract to the Intervenor after uniformly refusing to renew the contract for the remaining professional employees except for qualified holders such as doctoral degree, etc. who may continue to work for a fixed-term employee for more than two years pursuant to the proviso to paragraph (1) of the same Article. This cannot be deemed as a reasonable ground for refusal of the instant re-contract for the foregoing reasons. On the contrary, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Intervenor was temporarily employed for the introduction and establishment of the instant cyber educational system, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, or that there was no reason to conclude the contract under each subparagraph of Article 10(2) of the Regulations on the Management of Professional Employees at the time of refusal of the instant re-contract.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the rejection of the instant re-contract constitutes an unfair dismissal for lack of reasonable grounds. Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s arguments cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yan Jung-hun (Presiding Judge)