The case holding that the court below's decision that the rejection to renew the contract constitutes unfair dismissal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, in case where Gap's representative council's rejection to renew the contract at the time of expiration of the renewal period after concluding a labor contract with Eul's representative council members' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives' representatives

The case holding that the judgment of the court below which held that the rejection of renewal of the contract by the council of occupants' representatives constitutes an unfair dismissal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, in case where Gap's apartment council of occupants' representatives entered into a labor contract with Eul as the head of the management office by setting the contract period as one year, and thereafter refused renewal of the contract according to the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives at the expiration of the renewal period, on the grounds that the contract period stipulated in the labor contract is merely a form or the right of legitimate expectation that the contract can be renewed even if the contract period specified in the

Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act

Do forest village 1 complex council of occupants' representatives (Attorney Choi Byung-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Park Nam-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu32026 decided July 9, 2010

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where the term of a labor contract is fixed, the labor relationship between the parties to the labor contract shall naturally be terminated without being subject to separate measures, such as dismissal of the employer upon the expiration of the term, unless there are special circumstances. However, in a case where it is recognized that the term is merely a form of a contract, a labor contract without a fixed term may be deemed to have been concluded despite the language and text of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5673, Feb. 24, 2006). Even if the term of a labor contract cannot be deemed as merely a form of a contract, a labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. provides for the obligation to renew the contract, the procedure and requirements for the renewal of the contract, or the parties to the contract, the nature of the established period, the nature of the established period, the standard of renewal of the contract, and the actual condition thereof, in light of the various circumstances surrounding the labor contract, if the employer is deemed to have a legitimate expectation right to renew the labor contract in violation of the contract terms and conditions.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment, and found the following facts: although the contract period was set on December 9, 2007 between the plaintiff and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor"), the contract period was not just in the form, but the plaintiff has renewed the contract with other workers except the intervenor, and the refusal to renew the contract was not an employee on the ground of the expiration of the contract period, before the plaintiff's refusal to renew the contract was made, the contract period set in the employment contract between the intervenor and the plaintiff shall be deemed as the renewal period permitted by renewal, not the expiration of the contract period. In such a case, the refusal to renew the contract shall be deemed as the renewal period permitted by renewal, not the period fixed in the employment contract between the intervenor and the plaintiff is more relaxed than the criteria for the restriction on dismissal, which is applied by analogy of the legal principles of restriction on dismissal, but there is a reasonable ground to recognize as reasonable by social norms. Thus, the plaintiff's refusal to renew the above employment contract shall not be justified.

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff concluded a labor contract with all employees including the intervenor, and the rules of employment also stipulate that "the worker's labor contract shall be one year except where the contract period is specified (Article 11(4)); "the management office shall take measures to retire when the worker does not renew the contract due to the expiration of the contract period (Article 57 subparagraph 4)." Upon the expiration of the contract period, an employee shall retire naturally. Upon the expiration of the contract period, the plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the intervenor as the head of the management office on December 9, 2006, which provides that the plaintiff shall serve the intervenor as the head of the management office on December 9, 2007, after which the contract period expires; the intervenor entered into a labor contract again on December 18, 2008, which provides that the plaintiff and the representative of the autonomous management organization shall not hold a new labor contract with the expiration of the contract period of 10 years, and that the plaintiff shall exercise a resolution of the majority of the plaintiff's 2.

Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the contract term stipulated in the labor contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is merely in the form, or that the intervenor is entitled to renew the labor contract even if the contract term stipulated in the labor contract expires. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the labor contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor naturally terminated due to the expiration of the contract term, barring any special circumstance.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the rejection of renewal is unfair on the ground that the period stipulated in the labor contract between the intervenor and the plaintiff is the renewal period, and even if the period expires, there should be reasonable grounds that the plaintiff's refusal of renewal should be reasonable in light of social norms. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on restrictions on dismissal of employment contracts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)