[1] In a case where a contract of employment is prepared at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the standard for determining whether the contract is not determined

[2] The case holding that in case where a company entered into an agreement with a trade union on the introduction of a limited-term employment contract system with a labor union, and later entered into an employment contract with an employee for a period of one year, it shall be deemed that the contract was entered

[1] Article 23 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8327 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see Article 16 of the current Labor Standards Act) / [2] Article 23 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8327 of Apr. 11, 2007) (see Article 16 of the current Labor Standards Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da42489 delivered on January 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 603) Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5673 Delivered on February 24, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 527)

Airport Bus Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Hun-Hun, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

An intervenor;

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu5432 delivered on January 20, 2005

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even in cases 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 the contract by comprehensively taking into account the content of the contract, the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the labor contract, the purpose and genuine intent of the party 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 contract was concluded without a fixed period of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du625, May 29, 1998; 2005Du5673, Feb. 24, 2006). However, if the above circumstances are not acknowledged, it shall be deemed that the term of time has been fixed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the labor contract, which is a disposal document, in principle,

Upon examining the records of this case, the plaintiff company clearly stated the introduction of the limited labor contract system at least one year prior to the conclusion of the contract with the intervenor, and clearly stated its attitude to employ a bus driver by concluding a fixed-term employment contract with the labor union, such as making an agreement on the introduction of the limited labor contract system with the intervenor, and without clearly changing the position thereafter, the intervenor and the intervenor entered into the labor contract of this case with the period of one year specified in the contract of this case, and the intervenor also expressed their intention to enter into the contract of this case with no fixed period of one year, and they cannot be deemed to have entered into the contract of this case with the plaintiff company upon acceptance of the contract of this case. In light of the fact that the plaintiff company knew the expiration of the contract of this case and expressed their intention to refuse to renew the contract of this case at the expiration of the contract of this case, it cannot be deemed that the intervenor and the plaintiff company entered into the labor contract of this case for one year as stated in the contract of this case.

The court below held that the labor contract in this case was not fixed in terms of the nature of the term of the employment contract in this case, the term of the service contract in this case, the term of the service contract in the case, the term "buss drivers may renew the contract at their own request," the contents of the labor-management agreement on April 6, 200, other bus drivers who entered into a limited employment contract continued to work after the expiration of the term, barring special circumstances on the part of the worker, barring any special circumstances on the part of the worker, the plaintiff company continued to employ new employees and continued to work as a driver after the renewal of the contract in this case, and the term of the collective agreement in 202 to the effect that the contract in this case shall not exceed three months, but even if considering all such circumstances, it is insufficient to view the labor contract in this case as a non-fixed term

Therefore, the labor contract in this case constitutes a contract with a fixed period of time, and the relationship between the intervenor and the plaintiff company is terminated at the expiration of that period. Accordingly, on the basis of the above circumstances cited by the court below, even if the term of the labor contract expires for intervenors who have faithfully provided labor without any error during that period, the right to demand the plaintiff company to decide whether to renew the labor contract should be concluded with a reasonable expectation on April 6, 2000, and even if the term of the labor contract expires, if the renewal contract should be concluded, and even if it is illegally refused to renew the contract, if the refusal to renew the contract constitutes an illegal act, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination on the renewal of the labor contract in this case, which points out that the rejection to renew the labor contract in this case constitutes an unlawful act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da52647, Mar. 9, 206; 2005Da16041, Jul. 6, 2006).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)