Plaintiff 1 and 11 others (Law Firm Domestic, Attorneys Transferred-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Bae & Yang LLC, Attorneys Park Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 22, 2015

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Gahap101467 Decided May 21, 2014

1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim modified at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. The part of the claim for confirmation of an employee without setting the period employed in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

B. The plaintiffs confirm that the "current salary grade" in the attached Table 1 "Calculation of the salary grade and salary grade for each plaintiff" constitutes the salary grade for each plaintiff.

C. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated by applying the respective rates of 5% per annum from July 2, 2013 to November 26, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment with respect to each of the money indicated in the “total amount of discount” in the “Calculation of Salary and Salary for each Plaintiff” list and the “principal amount of discount” in the same Table.

D. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The 4/5 of the total litigation cost is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

3. The 1-C. A provisional execution may be effected.

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiffs confirm that they are workers without a fixed period of time employed by the defendant. It is as listed in subparagraph b (b) of the Disposition. (The plaintiffs changed the part of the claim to seek confirmation by raising the salary grade indicated in the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance as of the date of closing argument in the trial, respectively. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the money stated in the attached Table 1 of the "Calculation of Salary and Salary for each plaintiff" (hereinafter referred to as the "attached Table 1") and the "principal of the claim amount" in the same Table from July 2, 2013 to December 24, 2013 to the date of delivery of the claim for modification of the purport of the judgment of first instance and the cause of the claim, and the amount calculated by 20% per annum per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 4, 5, and 7, and the whole purport of arguments.

A. The defendant is a company running broadcasting business, cultural service business, advertising business, etc.

B. The plaintiffs entered the defendant company as a fixed-term employee in the attached Table 1 [Attachment 1] on the date indicated, and continued to work for the defendant company at the time of renewal of the contract whenever the contract term expires.

C. The “Date of the Conversion of Arms Contracts” in [Attachment 1] was respectively converted to a worker who does not have fixed period of time employed under the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”) on the Date indicated therein (hereinafter “Inorganic Contract Status”).

D. The Defendant concluded an employment contract with the Plaintiffs every one to two years even after the Plaintiffs were converted into a indefinite contract position, and accordingly, paid the Plaintiffs basic pay and bonus. The amount was 80% of the basic salary and bonus for the employees in general and technical service as regular employees belonging to the Defendant (hereinafter “regular employees”).

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid job allowances, license allowances, price allowances, housing allowances, food expenses, etc. to regular employees or the Plaintiffs in the same amount and manner. However, the monthly continuous service allowances paid to regular employees (in the amount of KRW 50,000 per five years of continuous service, up to five years of continuous service, and KRW 30,000 per five years thereafter) are not paid to the Plaintiffs. While the Defendant paid self-driving subsidies to regular employees in the amount of KRW 300,00 per month, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 20,00 per month.

F. As of May 2012, the Plaintiffs’ salary grade in Defendant Company is the same as the entry in the “existing salary grade” in [Attachment 1] as of May 201, and the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiffs’ regular salary grade thereafter.

(g) The main contents of the defendant's Employment Rules, the Regulations on the Regulations on the Regulations on the Positions, the Personnel Regulations, the Remuneration Regulations, and the Regulations on the Management of Contract Office are as shown in attached Form 2.

2. As to the claim for confirmation of workers with no fixed period of employment

As to this part of the claim, it is apparent in the record that the defendant does not dispute the fact that the plaintiffs are in an indefinite contract worker, so it cannot be deemed that there exists any legal uncertainty as to the above legal relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs do not have the interest in confirming the above claim against the Defendant, and thus, this part of the claim is unlawful.

3. As to the confirmation of a raise in salary grade and the claim for the difference in wages

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

From the date of changing the Plaintiffs’ inorganic contract positions, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiffs the same wages as regular employees by applying the Defendant’s Employment Rules. However, even if the Plaintiffs are treated as fixed-term workers, only 80% of the basic salary pursuant to the Remuneration Regulations shall not be paid, and continuous employment allowances shall not be paid. The self-drivers’ insurance money shall be paid less than regular employees by paying the amount of less than KRW 100,000 per month. In addition, the Defendant did not recognize the elevation of salary class for the Plaintiffs from May 2012.

The treatment of the plaintiffs by the defendant is an unlawful discriminatory act and is null and void against the provisions of Article 8 of the Fixed-term Act or Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, the Defendant, applying the same rules of employment as regular workers, has the obligation to pay the Plaintiffs the amount of wages to be paid from the date when the Plaintiffs were converted into an inorganic contract position to December 2012 (Provided, That the salary grade after May 2012 is not reflected in the amount of wages), which remains after deducting the actual amount of wages paid, and to pay the amount as stated in [Attachment Table 1] “total amount of claims” and its delay damages, and to recognize the Plaintiffs’ salary grade level after May 2012.

B. Determination

1) Form of employment rules to be applied to the Plaintiffs

A) The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence Eul's evidence Nos. 6-1 to 12, Eul's evidence Nos. 20-1 to 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 21-1 to 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 24-1 to 24-3, and the whole purport of the arguments and arguments.

(1) The Defendant’s Employment Rules provide for the purpose of determining working conditions, employment, and official duties of the Defendant’s “employee” (Article 1); the Defendant’s “employee” provides for working conditions such as service, employment, wages, retirement allowances, education and training, safety and health, welfare, accident compensation, accident compensation, reward, disciplinary action, maternity protection, equal employment equality, and prohibition and prevention of sexual harassment on the job (Article 51). Among them, the matters related to employment are governed by the Personnel Regulations (Article 52) and the matters concerning wages are separately prescribed (Article 52).

The term "employee" in the above Rules of Employment refers to the person provided for in Article 3 of the above Rules of Employment (Article 2), and the above Rules of Employment stipulates that a company's "employee" shall have a general or skilled employee (Article 3), and other persons shall be in extraordinary civil service, such as adviser, contract, entrustment, temporary worker, etc. (Article 4).

The Defendant’s Personnel Regulations, which set forth the matters concerning the personnel management of the Defendant’s “employee”, stipulates that “The time necessary for the regular safeguard between salary classes of the employee shall be one year (Article 41).”

Article 6 of the Act on the Remuneration of Defendant’s “Personnel” stipulates that the payment of wages shall be made according to the basic salary table for each class separately determined on the basis of the salary class assigned to the “employee” (Article 5). However, the Defendant has set the basic salary amount for the general service, technical service, and contractual service through negotiations with the National Press Union’s Cultural Broadcasting Center (○○ Branch) every year, and accordingly, paid the Defendant’s “employee” and “employee on a contractual basis.”

On the other hand, the defendant's rules on the operation of contract workers have been prepared to provide for matters concerning the working conditions, wages, and other employment of contract workers (Article 1). The "contract worker" here refers to a person employed by a contract with the labor conditions, labor relations, and labor period fixed under the "employment Contract" separately from the employees specified in Article 3 of the Regulations on the Operation of Contract Workers (Article 2). According to this provision, the wages of contract workers are composed of basic wages, prices, allowances, food, regular wage, and regular wage (Article 5), and the matters not specified therein are subject to separate standards for calculation (Article 5), but the provisions of the defendant's other provisions shall apply mutatis mutandis to the matters not specified in this contract.

(v) The Defendant, from the date of entry of the Plaintiffs to the date of transition of inorganic contract positions, treated the Plaintiffs as wages in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the “employment contract” concluded with the Plaintiffs every one to two years, and, by the year of 2011, recognized each salary class, such as the statement in [Attachment 1], by periodically raising salary grades every year for the Plaintiffs through the Contract Office Steering Committee.

⑹ 피고는, 원고들의 무기계약직 전환 이후에도 1~2년마다 ‘고용계약서’를 작성하였고 이에 따라 해당 근로자를 처우하였는데, 이 계약서에는 근무 부서 및 업무와 임금, 수당 등 급여, 고용계약기간, 원고들의 의무, 근무시간 및 휴게시간, 휴일 및 휴가, 복리후생 등의 근로조건이 규정되어 있고, 여기에 정함이 없는 사항은 관계 법령 및 피고의 규정에 따르도록 하였으며, 이러한 급여의 기본적인 항목과 구성, 복무규율 등의 근로조건은 모든 ‘고용계약서’마다 동일한 내용이었다(다만 ‘시간외근무수당’을 지급하는 경우와 그 대신 ‘특근비와 당·숙직비’를 지급하는 경우는 원고별로 나뉘어져 있다).

⑺ 피고는 기간제법 시행 이후 종전 기간제(계약직) 근로자 중 무기계약직으로 전환될 근로자들을 ‘업무직 사원’으로 분류하고 그들에 관한 근로조건을 정한 규정을 마련하고자 하였으나, 아직까지 기간제에서 무기계약직으로 전환된 근로자의 근로조건을 별도로 정한 규정을 마련하지는 못하였다.

B) The rules of employment stipulate rules on working conditions, such as service rules and wages, and it does not need to be uniformly applied to all workers belonging to the same workplace, and an employer may prepare separate rules of employment applicable to part of workers according to the characteristics of the working conditions, form of work, and occupation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da11628, Feb. 25, 2000). In addition, it does not necessarily refer to the name thereof, but it also constitutes rules of employment if the rules of employment and working conditions are included in individual labor contracts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24511, Nov. 28, 197).

In addition, since rules of employment have the nature of legal norms that provide for collective legal relations between labor and management, interpretation or fact-finding should be careful and strict unless there is clear evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da69631, Mar. 14, 2003, etc.). However, when there is room for interpretation, the institutional nature of rules of employment, common intention of workers, and customary meaning in each workplace, industry, or region should be considered together.

C) We examine the instant case based on the nature and interpretation criteria of the rules of employment.

(1) According to the above paragraph (a) above, the defendant prepared the Rules of Employment, the Personnel Regulations, and the Remuneration Regulations as a regular employee, and did not have the rules of employment in a separate form with regard to indefinite contract workers who were converted from a fixed-term employee as the plaintiffs.

Therefore, deeming that the Defendant’s Employment Rules, the Personnel Regulations, and the Remuneration Regulations, which directly apply to the Plaintiffs, constitutes the working conditions rules applicable to the Plaintiffs, are contrary to the language and text of Article 2 of the Gininnin Employment Rules and Article 3 of the Regulations, and are also inconsistent with the purport or customary meaning of the Defendant’s above provision, and the common intent of the entire employees belonging to the Defendant.

She also stated that the Defendant’s Regulation on the Operation of Contract Service also stipulates that “the worker employed by a contract with a fixed period of work” is “the worker who is employed by the contract.” As seen earlier, the above provision is not applicable to the Plaintiffs since there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the Plaintiffs are “worker with no fixed period of work.”

On the other hand, the Defendant separately prepared the “employment contract” containing the rules on the working conditions, such as service regulations and wages, for inorganic contract workers, and applied it uniformly to inorganic contract workers converted from the fixed-term employment system. Therefore, the “employment contract” entered into with the Plaintiffs constitutes the employment rules, which are the rules on the working conditions directly applicable to inorganic contract workers converted from the fixed-term employment system, such as the Plaintiffs.

2) As to the claim for confirmation of salary class

A) The above employment contract that the Defendant entered into with the Plaintiffs is merely a provision on the basic salary, bonus, and allowance system for inorganic contract workers converted from a fixed-term employment contract workers, as seen earlier, and there is no provision on raise in salary. However, the above employment contract provides that the matters not specified in the individual employment contract shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the Defendant’s other provisions.

In addition, until May 2012, the defendant recognized the salary grade for employees (general workers and technical workers) every one year, as stipulated in Article 41 of the Personnel Management Regulations.

In light of these facts, Article 41 of the Regulations on Personnel Management concerning the Salary Salary of Employees in an indefinite contract converted from a fixed-term employment contract has been applied as part of the rules of employment in accordance with the provisions applicable mutatis mutandis to the above employment contract.

B) As to this, the Defendant pointed out that wages for inorganic contract workers are excessive in the course of the audit of the cultural broadcasting company, a head office, and did not recognize the salary grade since May 2012 to reflect this in order to this end, and accordingly, asserts that the salary grade for the Plaintiffs after May 2012 cannot be recognized.

However, as seen earlier, the provisions applicable mutatis mutandis to the “employment contract” to which the Defendant applied to the Plaintiffs’ salary grade and Article 41 of the Personnel Regulations thereto fall under the employment rules for the Defendant’s inorganic contract workers. However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant changed the contents of the employment rules through the revision procedure prescribed in Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act (in short, each of the items in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the evidence 9-1) with respect to the Plaintiffs, other working conditions regarding the regular salary grade cannot be established against the Plaintiffs.

C) Therefore, according to the above rules of employment, the Plaintiffs should be recognized as the salary grade indicated in the “current Salary” column for each Plaintiff in the attached Table 1 [Attachment Table] on the date of closing the argument in the court of the first instance on a regular salary grade every year after May 2012 pursuant to the above rules of employment. As such, the Plaintiffs have the interest to seek confirmation of the current salary grade.

3) As to the claim for the difference in wages

(A) the application of the Employment Rules, etc.

As seen earlier, with respect to the working conditions such as basic pay, bonus, allowances, etc. of the plaintiffs who have been converted from fixed-term position to fixed-term position, the Employment Rules and the Remuneration Regulations are not applicable to regular employees, and the conditions stipulated in the employment contract concluded by the defendant with the plaintiffs are applied.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant’s payment of basic pay, bonus, allowances, etc. to regular employees pursuant to the above Employment Rules, etc. is not acceptable (On the other hand, the Defendant concluded a collective agreement with the Plaintiffs on November 19, 201, which belongs to the Daejeon Cultural Broadcasting Headquarters of the Korea Press Workers’ Union, with the content that the said division pays basic pay, etc. to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the “the basic salary schedule for contractual workers” with respect to the Plaintiffs, and such collective agreement should be applied with priority over the above “employment contract”. However, there is insufficient evidence to deem that the said division was delegated with the authority to conclude a collective agreement for the Plaintiffs, which has been converted from the fixed-term position to an inorganic contract, or that the said division

B) Whether equal treatment has been violated

(i)As to Article 8 of the Fixed Term Act

Article 8 of the Fixed-term Workers Act provides that an employer shall not discriminate against a fixed-term worker employed in the same or similar job at the relevant business or workplace on the ground that he/she is a fixed-term worker. However, this provision purports to prohibit discriminatory treatment between fixed-term workers and inorganic contract workers, and it does not prohibit discriminatory treatment between fixed-term workers and inorganic contract workers converted from a fixed-term worker. Thus, this case where the latter discriminatory treatment is a key issue is not applicable.

Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act

㈎ 근로기준법 제6조 는, 사용자가 근로자에 대하여 사회적 신분을 이유로 근로조건에 대한 차별적 처우를 하지 못하도록 규정하고 있다.

㈏ 위 규정에서의 ‘사회적 신분’이란 사회에서 장기간 갖는 지위로서 일정한 사회적 평가를 수반하는 것으로서( 헌법재판소 1995. 2. 23. 선고 93헌바43 결정 참조) 사업장 내에서 근로자 자신의 의사나 능력발휘에 의해서 회피할 수 없는 사회적 분류를 가리킨다고 볼 수 있다.

㈐ 그리고 위 규정에서 말하는 ‘차별적 처우’란, 법률 등 규범이 헌법상 평등권이 침해되는지 여부를 판단하는 경우와 마찬가지로, ‘본질적으로 같은 것을 다르게, 다른 것을 같게 취급하는 것’을 말하며, 본질적으로 같지 않은 것을 다르게 취급하는 경우에는 차별 자체가 존재한다고 할 수 없다. 따라서 근로기준법에서 금지하는 차별적 처우에 해당하기 위해서는 우선 그 전제로서 차별을 받았다고 주장하는 사람과 그가 비교대상자로 지목하는 사람이 본질적으로 동일한 비교집단에 속해 있어야 한다( 대법원 2015. 10. 29. 선고 2013다1051 판결 참조).

However, in order to determine whether the comparable person belongs to the "inherently the same comparative group" under the Constitution, physical characteristics or realistic aspects, such as the inherent characteristics of the compared group itself or the characteristics of duties, should not be considered. Likewise, the normative interpretation of the meaning and purpose of the provisions related to the comparison should also be taken into account together with the constitutional provisions related to the comparison (see Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ma538, Mar. 25, 2010) (see Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ma538, Mar. 25, 2010), as well as the form of employment, the scope, authority and responsibility of the worker employed by the compared group, as well as the situation in which the content

㈑ 또한 ‘본질적으로 동일한 비교집단’에 속해 있는 비교대상자와 다른 처우를 하더라도, 그러한 처우가 ‘합리적인 이유 없이’ 불리하게 처우하여야 근로기준법 제6조 가 정한 ‘차별적 처우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 있는데, 여기서 ‘합리적인 이유가 없는 경우’란 근로자를 달리 처우할 필요성이 인정되지 않거나, 달리 처우할 필요성이 인정되는 경우라도 그 방법·정도 등이 적정하지 않은 경우를 의미한다고 보아야 한다( 대법원 2012. 10. 25. 선고 2011두7045 판결 참조).

Article 22(1) of the Civil Code provides that “The case shall be examined.”

㈎ 기본급 및 상여금 부분

The defendant set up only 80% of the basic salary to regular employees for inorganic contract workers converted from the same fixed-term workers as the plaintiffs pursuant to the above "employment contract" and paid the basic salary and bonus.

However, in light of the aforementioned evidence: (a) evidence Nos. 4 through 6’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9-1 through 5, 10, 15, 16, 30 through 35, 16, 30 through 35, 36, 38-2, and 39 of evidence Nos. 36, 39; and (b) the overall purport of each testimony of Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, the witness of the trial at the trial at the trial; and (c) the regular employees providing labor at the same department as the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs (hereinafter “regular employees subject to non-party Nos. 9”)’s present contents and scope of their duties; (d) the regular employees subject to comparison can be acknowledged as having no difference in the number of duties; and (e) the employees subject to promotion through an open competitive examination of the head of the department, including documents, written ability, written examination, and examination; and (e) the Plaintiffs are not assigned the deputy head of the position.

According to these facts of recognition, since there are differences in the employment routes and duties of the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees belong to the same comparable group in essence, and there are reasonable grounds for different treatment.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant violated Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act by treating the Plaintiffs as discriminatory treatment, on the ground that the Defendant set 80% of the basic salary to regular employees pursuant to the aforementioned “employment contract” and paid the Plaintiffs a basic salary and bonus.

㈏ 근속수당 부분

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant paid continuous service allowances of KRW 50,00 per month to regular employees for up to five years according to the continuous service period, and KRW 30,00 per month for five years thereafter, in order to encourage the long-term service period. However, with respect to the plaintiffs who were converted from fixed-term employment to fixed-term employment, the defendant continued to pay continuous service allowances even after becoming a fixed-term worker from the time when he/she was employed as a fixed-term worker.

In full view of the grounds for and details of the payment of continuous service allowances and the working conditions at the time when the Plaintiffs worked as a fixed-term employee or a fixed-term employee (in particular, the term of a labor contract has been set), it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs’ continuous service while employed as a fixed-term employee and the continuous service period of comparable regular employees cannot be essentially the same subject of comparison.

However, with respect to the payment of allowances on the condition of continuous service after the transition from the fixed-term occupation to the fixed-term occupation, in light of the grounds for the payment of continuous service allowances for encouragement of long-term employment, its payment contents, the labor contract period between the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular workers is the same, and the contents and scope of the work and the amount of work are not different, it can be deemed that the continuous service period of the Plaintiffs, who are the same inorganic contract workers, and the comparable regular workers, is in essence different from

In addition, discriminatory treatment for the payment of continuous service allowances on the ground that it was converted into a fixed-term worker (the plaintiff and the comparable regular worker) between the fixed-term worker employed in the same business or workplace may not be avoided with his/her own intent or ability in the pertinent business or workplace (the defendant asserts that he/she can avoid the above classification by demonstrating his/her ability by means of acquiring a regular position through open recruitment procedure. However, it is reasonable to see that his/her ability is based on the premise that the worker complies with the basic duty to provide labor to the employer.) and can be viewed as discrimination on the ground of social status corresponding to a long-term position accompanying a certain social evaluation, and just because there is a difference between the employment routes and the scope of responsibilities of the plaintiffs and the comparable regular worker, the method and degree of the payment of continuous service allowances in addition to the continuous service period are recognized, or it is difficult to view that the method and degree of such treatment are appropriate in order to encourage continuous service.

㈐ 자가운전보조금 부분

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant’s payment of self-driving expenses to regular workers in the nature of compensating for actual expenses incurred in the work activities of workers using his/her own vehicle, and 200,000 won to the Plaintiffs, can be acknowledged.

In addition, as seen earlier, considering that the content and scope of the work of the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees, the scope and content of their work activities using their own vehicles, and expenses incurred in relation to the disbursement of self-driving subsidies cannot be different from each other, the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees, in essence, belong to the same comparative group. Nevertheless, the Plaintiffs’ payment of self-driving subsidies constitutes a discrimination based on social status, on the ground that the Plaintiffs were converted from fixed-term employees, and the payment of self-driving subsidies is less than KRW 100,000 per month compared to the comparable regular employees. The mere fact that there is a difference between the employment route and scope of responsibility of the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees, the scope and degree of liability of the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees, etc. is difficult to recognize the need for granting subsidies with other amounts

And therefore, the basic salary and bonus payment terms for the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to violate Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act. However, the unpaid continuous service allowances and partial payment of self-driving subsidies after the conversion into an indefinite contract shall be deemed to be null and void in violation of the above provision.

C) Formation of the claim for difference payment

(1) In a case where a certain juristic act falls under a “unfair juristic act” under Article 104 of the Civil Act and thus becomes null and void, Article 138 of the Civil Act concerning the conversion of invalidation may be applicable (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da50308, Jul. 15, 2010). Likewise, in a case where a certain working condition is null and void in violation of a mandatory provision under the Labor Standards Act, the legal doctrine on the conversion of invalidation under the said Civil Act may be applicable.

Therefore, if it is exceptionally acknowledged that both labor and management agreed on the working conditions in different terms if they knew of the invalidity of the pertinent working conditions, such working conditions may be deemed effective. In such a case, a labor and management’s intent is a assumptive intent that would have been intended if they first known that the pertinent working conditions were null and void in violation of the mandatory provisions, and the labor and management would have decided in light of the principle of trust and good faith in light of the practice taken into account when the labor and management assumed that the pertinent working conditions were null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da50308, Jul. 15, 2010).

B. Based on these legal principles, the instant case is examined.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Plaintiffs did not have any difference between the comparable regular employees and the Plaintiffs with regard to the duty allowances, license allowances, price allowances, housing allowances, and food expenses that the Defendant paid irrespective of the scope of the responsibility for duties or the job class system. The Plaintiffs are total 12 workers and the continuous service period should be calculated from the date of the inorganic contract conversion. As the Plaintiffs’ part of the Plaintiffs were converted into an inorganic contract position, within KRW 18 million per year (12 months x 12 months x 10 years converted into an inorganic contract) and their contents, the identity of the terms and conditions of the employment contract between the Plaintiffs and the comparable regular employees, and the scope of their duties, work volume, etc., and the duty allowances, license allowances, price allowances, housing allowances, and food expenses that the Defendant paid to the comparable regular employees and the Plaintiffs. Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s employees were paid the same financial burden as those of the 2010-2012 regular employees or less than those of the 2012-12012-year wage.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the payment of continuous service allowances and self-driving subsidies under the same conditions as regular workers from the time of the conversion of occupation in an indefinite contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs was effective. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs 150,000 won per month from the date of the above conversion to the date of the original payment of annual damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the date following the date of the payment of each benefit to July 1, 2013, as stated in the table of each plaintiff's separate calculation file, and to pay to the plaintiffs 150,000 won per month (the sum of continuous service allowances of 50,000 won per month and self-driving subsidies of 10,000 won per month from the date of the above conversion to the date of the original payment of each benefit, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the date after the date of service of the complaint of this case to the date of 2013.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of workers without the fixed period of employment should be dismissed as unlawful. The part of the claim for confirmation of salary class changed in the trial court's change is justified, and the part of the claim for wage difference is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by changing the judgment of the first instance court which partially differs from the above conclusion.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)