The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 4(1) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Employment Act”) provides that “An employer may appoint a fixed-term worker within a period not exceeding two years (where a fixed-term employment contract is renewed repeatedly, the total period of his/her continuous employment shall not exceed two years).” Meanwhile, the proviso provides that “If a fixed-term worker is employed for more than two years despite the absence or extinguishment of the grounds under the proviso to paragraph (1), the fixed-term worker shall be deemed an employee who has concluded an employment contract without a fixed period of time.”

The legislative intent of the above provisions is to guarantee the status of workers by preventing abuse of fixed-term employment contracts.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Du45765 Decided November 10, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du45765, Nov. 10, 2016). In light of the form, content, and legislative intent of the provision on a fixed-term employment contract, if there is a blank period during which no employment relationship exists between a fixed-term employment contract repeatedly concluded, whether setting such blank period follows the employer’s intent to evade the application of Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Employment Act, or whether such blank period may be determined as continuing the employment relationship before and after the blank period, by taking into account the following factors: (a) the degree of the blank period’s length and the total period of use before and after such blank period; (b) the developments leading up to the blank period; (c) the situation in which the blank period occurred; (d) the method of replacing the relevant fixed-term worker’