Busan Metropolitan City (Attorney Seo-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Inn, Attorneys Lee Jong-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 24, 2018

Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Guhap105854 Decided October 25, 2017

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 court is revoked. On October 14, 2016, the Central Labor Relations Commission revoked the decision made by the second instance court as to the case of application for retrial against unfair dismissal (No. 817) between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”).

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence

○ Heading 17 to 14 pages 13 are as follows.

“(3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have been converted into an inorganic employee as long as the Intervenor’s legitimate expectation right regarding the renewal of an employment contract cannot be acknowledged. However, an English professional instructor is converted into an inorganic employee if the total period of continuous employment under Article 4(2) and (1)6 of the Act, Article 3(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fixed-term Act, and Article 42(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act exceeds four years, and the right to expect the renewal of an employment contract is recognized as an inorganic expert as long as the total period of continuous employment exceeds four years. The issue of whether the pertinent English professional instructor is deemed to have the right to expect the renewal of an employment contract is not an element to determine whether it is converted into an inorganic employee. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s argument cannot be accepted without considering whether the Intervenor’s right to expect the renewal of the contract is acknowledged.”

○ 15, the 13th to 20ths are as follows.

In light of the system introduced, the purpose of its introduction, etc., it is difficult to view that the English language professional instructor system is a case where the contract term is set up until the time when the business or service is anticipated to be completed with respect to the business or specified business, and it is obvious that the English professional instructor system will terminate after an objective specified

(B) The Plaintiff, around 2009 and around 2011, did not guide or publicly announce that the English language specialist system is a temporary project when publicly announcing the selection plan for the English language specialist.

(C) Rather, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology and the 16 City/Do superintendent of education provide guidance on the recruitment of specialized English lecturers in the year 2009, which was drafted under the name of the Minister of Education, Science and Technology and the 16 City/Do superintendent of education, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology, etc. may renew the contract only for two years and professional English lecturers. However, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology, etc. seems to introduce the English language lecturers system from the intention of promoting the long-term implementation of the English language lecturers system

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)