2016Du3391 Revocation of the Appeal Tribunal on Unfair Dismissal

Korea

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

A

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu34481 Decided January 27, 2016

July 14, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In principle, an employee who has entered into an employment contract with a fixed period of time shall naturally terminate the employment contract upon the expiration of the term, and if he/she fails to renew the employment contract, he/she shall automatically retire even without the employer’s expression of refusal to renew the employment contract. However, even if the term expires in a labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc., the pertinent employment contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of a certain term. However, in full view of various circumstances surrounding the relevant employment relationship, such as the details of the employment contract, the motive and circumstances leading up to the formation of the employment contract, the standards for renewal of the contract, etc., the establishment of the requirements or procedures for renewal of the employment contract, the actual conditions thereof, and the contents of the work performed by the employee, etc., if there is a fiduciary relationship formed between the parties to the employment contract that the employment contract may be renewed if the certain term of the contract is met, and thus, the employer’s refusal to renew the employment contract unfairly in violation of such provision has no validity as it is unfair (see, e.g

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the reasonable and justifiable right of expectation was formed to the Intervenor joining the Defendant, as long as the instant commission exists, that the labor contract with the Plaintiff would be renewed.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles on the legitimate right

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The burden of proving the legitimacy of dismissal shall be borne by the person who asserts in a lawsuit disputing an adjudication tribunal on relief against unfair dismissal under Article 33 of the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du202, Apr. 27, 1999).

The lower court’s determination rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the refusal of the renewal of a labor contract was not an improper refusal of the renewal of a labor contract, can be deemed as detrimental to the Plaintiff’s failure to bear the burden of proof as to the reasonable grounds for refusal of the renewal of a labor contract, and is acceptable as it is in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine. Therefore, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the reasonable grounds for refusal of the renewal of a labor contract

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the part arising from the participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de