logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.12.12 2015두47836
부당해고구제재심판정취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including those incurred by supplementary participation.

Reasons

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 employ a fixed-term worker within the extent not exceeding two years (in cases of the repeated renewal of a fixed-term employment contract, the total period of 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.”

According to the above provision, if a fixed-term worker is appointed as an employee who has entered into an employment contract without a fixed period of time pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Fixed-term Workers Act, the period of employment, excluding the period of exception under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Workers Act, shall

In addition, even if there exists a period falling under the exception of the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Fixed-term Employment Act between the repeatedly concluded fixed-term employment contracts, it is reasonable to calculate the total period of continuous employment under Article 4 of the Fixed-term Employment Act by adding the period of continuous employment to the period of continuous employment under Article 4 of the Fixed-term Employment Act, excluding the period falling under the exception, in cases where the employment relationship before and after the contract is deemed to continue without

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da2672 Decided November 27, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Du54975 Decided June 19, 2018). 2. The lower court repeatedly concluded and renewed a one-year fixed-term employment contract against the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor. Article 4(1)6 of the Fixed-term Employment Act and Article 4(1)6 of the same Act are applicable to the Plaintiff.

arrow