In a case where Gap's broadcasting company announced new employment with a contract term of one year in 2016 and 2017 and announced new employment to the effect that it is possible to extend a contract based on evaluation, and entered into an employment contract on the same condition as six (6) and five (6) in 2016, and extended the above employment contract under the same condition as six (6) in 2016, the case holding that Gap's employment contract has no legitimate grounds for refusing to renew the employment contract without reasonable grounds, even though Gap participated in the special employment procedure and notified the above eleven (11) of his/her intention to renew the employment contract without renewal of the employment contract, but only one of them were selected and his/her intention to not renew the employment contract, and nine (9) members, including Eul, who finally expressed his/her intention not to renew the employment contract, etc., in consideration of various circumstances surrounding the employment relationship between Gap's broadcasting company and Eul, etc.

In 2016 and 2017, A broadcasting company announced new employment with the content that the contract period shall be one year and that the extension of the contract may be possible based on evaluation, and entered into an employment contract by selecting each of six and five persons in 2016, and extended the above employment contract under the same condition as six and six persons in 2016. In 2018, the public notice of the employment of new employees was issued in 2018, and the above 11 persons was notified that they will participate in the special employment procedure without renewal of the employment contract, but only one person was selected from among them and will not renew the employment contract was finally expressed to the rest of them, and the request for remedy was made by nine persons, including B, who finally expressed their intent not to renew the employment contract.

Considering the fact that Party B, etc. applied for and selected in 2016 and 2017, the employment classification only in the employment publication of Party B, the term of the contract was stipulated as one year, and that Party B, etc. concluded with Party B, etc., the pertinent employment contract is terminated unless the contract is terminated after the expiration of the contract period, it cannot be deemed that Party B, etc.’s contract period under the employment contract concluded with Party B, etc. is merely the form of the contract. However, it is not possible to change the type of employment according to Party A’s internal standards such as future evaluation, etc., on the ground that Party B, etc.’s new employment announcement of Party B, etc. did not have a reasonable ground for changing the employment period of Party A’s employment contract to Party B, etc. based on the results of the employment announcement of Party A’s employment contract or new employment announcement of Party B, etc., it appears to the purport that Party A, as well as Party A’s new employment announcement of Party A’s employment contract, can be converted to regular employees based on the results of Party A’s employment contract or new employment contract.

Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

As shown in the list of the Intervenor joining the Defendant (Attorney Yang Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 19, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

On January 18, 2019, the Central Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of review on the application case for remedying unfair dismissal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant joining the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the decision on retrial;

A. On February 21, 1961, the Plaintiff is a legal entity operating a broadcasting business. The Intervenor 5, the Intervenor 6, the Intervenor 7, the Intervenor 8, and the Intervenor 9 (hereinafter the above Intervenor 16) and Nonparty 1 were employed for the Plaintiff since 2016, and the Intervenor 1, the Intervenor 2, the Intervenor 3, and the Intervenor 4 (hereinafter the above Intervenor 1 referred to as “the Intervenor 17”) and Nonparty 2, including the Intervenor 16 and Nonparty 2, were employed for the Plaintiff since 2017.

B. Around January 2016, the Plaintiff publicly announced the employment of a new transport, including the following details. The Plaintiff publicly announced the same content other than those that did not disclose the screening schedule in advance even after rhym:

Table 1. Table 1. Screening process documents in the field of recruitment and screening process / Dong image screening / 2 interview (a capacity interview/prior interview) ○○○ (including a technical contract interview) ○ ○ (including a carmera test) ○ ○ ○ ○ (a specialized contract), culture, and other major programs are available to work outside the relevant field as required by the company in the future. The term of the contract under the terms of the contract under the terms of the contract under the terms of the contract under the terms of the contract: A year (which can be extended according to evaluation) * To change the type of employment according to the internal standards of the MBC, such as future evaluation. 3. Acceptance of an application for the typical standard: 00 to 000 on January 13, 2016: 18: Doz. 200 on February 14, 2016 and 20: Doz. 216.16.

C. Around April 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Intervenor No. 16 and Nonparty 1 during the contract period from April 4, 2016 to April 3, 2017, setting the contract period from April 3, 2017. Around April 2017, the term of the contract was extended under the same condition, other than that determined by April 3, 2018. The Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the Intervenor No. 17 as well as Nonparty 2, who were equally selected on May 2, 2017, by setting the contract period from May 22, 2017 to May 21, 2018.

D. Around February 2018, the Plaintiff publicly announced that new employees, including the Ignman’s letter, are employed as regular employees as follows.

1. A table 1. A table contained in the main sentence, if a Kamera test in the recruitment process in the field of recruitment and the recruitment process of screening process is interviewed with the ability to conduct a written test of the Kamera test, a written written test of the 2nd regular interview with the 1st regular interview with the 2nd regular interview with the 1st regular interview with the 2nd regular interview with the 3nd regular knowledge related to the 00 ○ general culture and the duties of each field; 3. A written test of the Gamera in the field of Malina on February 13, 2018: A written test of the Malina on February 21, 2018: A written test of the Malina on March 3, 2018 to March 4, 2018: A person who passed the written test and then a screening is scheduled to post a notice on the recruitment website matters

E. Around March 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 that he/she would proceed with the special employment procedure without renewal of the employment contract. The Intervenor and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 participated in the special employment procedure conducted in the same manner as in the screening procedure publicly announced as above. On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a notice that only Nonparty 2 was selected during the special employment procedure, and subsequently expressed their intention not to renew the employment contract to the Intervenor and Nonparty 1.

F. On June 28, 2018, the Intervenor asserted that “the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was not fixed by the period of time.” Even if the labor contract was concluded with a fixed period of time, the Intervenor had a legitimate expectation for the renewal of the labor contract or the conversion into regular workers, so the Plaintiff’s failure to convert into regular workers without renewal of the labor contract with the Intervenor constitutes an unfair dismissal.” On September 10, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a request for remedy. On September 10, 2018, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission concluded a labor contract with a fixed period of time, but the Intervenor recognized the legitimate expectation right for its renewal. Nevertheless, the Intervenor refused the renewal of the labor contract with the Intervenor without any reasonable reason, which is invalid, and the Intervenor still constitutes the Plaintiff’s worker.”

G. On October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination with the Central Labor Relations Commission as to the Ministry of Labor on October 19, 2018, but the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of reexamination that dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination on the same ground as the initial inquiry court (hereinafter “instant decision of reexamination”) on January 18, 2019, and notified the Plaintiff on February 19, 2019. The Plaintiff received the authentic copy of the said written decision of reexamination on February 21, 2019.

H. At the time of May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff announced the aforementioned special employment result, including the following personnel regulations, the rules of employment for contractual workers, the rules of employment for contract workers, the personnel evaluation rules, the rules of employment for work and contract employment, the rules of employment for contract workers, and the rules of delegation discretion

본문내 포함된 표 [인사규정] 제1장 총칙 제4조(정의) 이 규정에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음과 같다. 3. 직급이라 함은 직무수행의 곤란성과 책임도가 유사한 자격을 말한다. 가. 일반직은 국장, 부장, 차장, 사원으로 한다. 나. 연봉직은 연봉직 선임, 연봉직 주임, 연봉직 사원으로 한다. 다. 업무직은 업무직 선임, 업무직 주임, 업무직 사원으로 한다. 7. 직급승진이라 함은 하위직급에서 상위직급으로 오르는 것을 말한다. 8. 승호라 함은 일반직 호봉제 직원의 경우 하위호봉에서 상위호봉으로 오르는 것을 말한다. 제5조(직원의 구분) 회사의 직원은 일반직, 연봉직, 촉탁직, 업무직으로 구분하며, 직원의 체계는 [별표 1]과 같이 정의한다. 1. 일반직이라 함은 기간의 정함이 없이 채용되어 특별한 사유가 없는 한 정년까지 근무가 예정된 자를 말한다. 2. 연봉직이라 함은 업무직에서 전환된 자로 특별한 사유가 없는 한 정년까지 근무가 예정된 자를 말한다. 4. 업무직이라 함은 계약직에서 전환되었거나 업무직으로 공개 채용된 자로 특별한 사유가 없는 한 정년까지 근무가 예정된 자를 말한다. 제8조(임용권자) ① 직원의 임용은 사장이 행한다. ② 제1항의 직원 임용에 관하여 소속 국장은 인사담당국장을 경유하여 임용권자에게 제청 또는 의견을 제출할 수 있다. 제9조(채용원칙) 직원의 신규채용은 공개경쟁시험에 의하여 채용함을 원칙으로 한다. 제2장 채용 제10조(특별채용) ① 다음 각호의 1에 해당하는 경우에는 서류 심사 등 특별전형에 의하여 채용할 수 있다. 4. 계약직으로 일정기간 이상 근무한 자 중 근무성적이 우수한 자를 채용하는 경우 6. 기타 특별채용이 필요한 경우 제28조(연봉직) ① 업무직의 연봉직 전환은 전환대상자의 직무가치, 근속연수, 근무평가 결과, 상사평가 결과, 업무지식 등 제반 사정을 고려하여 사장이 결정한다. ③ 연봉직은 제4장 직급승진 및 승호에 관한 규정을 적용받지 아니한다. 제29조(업무직) ① 계약직의 업무직 전환 여부는 직무가치, 근속연수, 근무평가, 상사평가 등을 종합하여 결정한다. ② 업무직은 제4장 직급승진 및 승호에 관한 규정을 적용받지 아니한다. [계약직 취업규칙] 제9조(계약직의 근로계약서 작성) ③ 근로계약기간은 1년으로 하고 필요한 경우 당사자와 합의하여 1년을 한도로 연장할 수 있다. 단, 관계 법령에서 정한 사용기간 제한의 예외 사유에 해당하는 경우에는 2년을 초과하여 계약할 수 있다. 제68조(당연퇴직) 계약직 근로자가 다음 각호의 1에 해당하는 경우에는 당해 사실 발생일에 당연히 근로관계는 종료한다. 3. 계약직 근로자의 개별 근로계약기간이 종료되었을 때 제74조(보수의 구성 및 결정) ① 계약직 근로자의 보수는 월 계약급과 개별 근로계약에 명시된 상여로 구성된다. (단서 생략) ② 계약직 근로자의 보수는 연봉제로 하며 근무평가 결과에 따라 매년 조정하는 것을 원칙으로 한다. [인사평가규정] 제4조(평가대상) 인사평가는 일반직, 연봉직 직원에 대하여 실시한다. 제12조(평가등급 및 평가등급 분포율) ① 업적평가의 평가등급 및 평가등급 분포율은 다음 [표]와 같이 정하되, 1차 평가 전 본부장은 소속 본부의 평가등급별 평가등급 분포율을 평가군 간 조정할 수 있으며, 사장·부사장 직속 조직을 통합하여 부사장이 조정할 수 있다. 다만 평가등급 분포율은 본부 단위로 다음 [표]의 기준을 준수해야 한다. (표: 평가등급이 E, V, G, N, I로 되어 있다) [업무직 및 계약직 근무평가규정] 제3조(근무평가대상) 근무평가는 근무평가기준일 현재 재직 중인 전 업무직 직원 및 계약직 근로자를 대상으로 하여 실시한다. (단서 생략) 제11조(근무평가등급) 근무평가등급은 ‘S’, ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’로 구분한다. [위임전결규정] 제4조(위임전결사항) ① 위임전결사항은 [별표]와 같다. ② [별표]에 열거되지 아니한 사안이 발생할 경우에는 당해 업무를 관장하는 조직의 국장이 전결권자를 판단한다. [별표] 위임전결사항 기능 업무내용 사장 부사장 본부장 국장 부장 공통 4. 인사관리 가. 채용, 증원 신청 - 직원, 계약직 ○ 나. 전보, 파견, 복귀 신청 ○ (단, 국내 부서 간 이동의 경우 국장전결) 인사/총무 6. 인사 관리 가. 채용(정원) 관리 1) 직원의 채용결정, 수습해제 ○ 2) 계약직, 용역의 증원 결정 ○ 3) 계약직의 합격, 채용, 재계약 ○ 4) 계약직의 채용진행 ○ 5) 용역의 제 채용업무 ○

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 6, 8, 12, 18, 38, Eul evidence 19, 57 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision on the retrial of this case is lawful

(a) Whether the period has not lapsed in the form prescribed;

1) The intervenor's assertion

The term of employment contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor is determined only in the form, and thus, it should be viewed as an employment contract without a fixed term of time.

2) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a contract is prepared with a fixed period of time, for example, where the fixed period of a short-term employment contract becomes merely a type of a contract, such as where the contract is repeated over a long period of time, and the motive and circumstances leading up to the execution of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the contract, practices on the conclusion method of the same kind of employment contract, workers protection regulations, etc., it shall be deemed that the contract was entered into without a fixed period of time, notwithstanding the terms and conditions of the contract. In such a case, the employer’s refusal of a renewal contract without justifiable grounds shall be deemed null and void as in the case of dismissal. However, unless there are special circumstances to see that the term of the contract is merely a type of a contract, a labor relationship between the parties to the contract is naturally terminated without separate measures, such as dismissal of the employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du5673, Feb. 24, 2006; 2010Du7628, Nov. 10, 201).

3) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap's 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 23, Eul's 10, 18, 19, 57 (including each number, if any), the testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by non-party 3, the witness non-party 3, and the following facts.

① In 2013 and 2018, the Plaintiff publicly announced that he/she would employ a new letter, and at that time, the term of the contract or the classification of employment was not specified as a contractual position. The Plaintiff’s setting the term of the contract as one year is only the public announcement of employment in 2016 and 2017 as at the time the Intervenor applied for.

② Around January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff discussed the following matters in consideration of whether it is necessary to hire an internal contract worker.

3. Table 3. Terms and Conditions of the Contract 6. Budget-related - Employment of contract workers is not separately paid to the applicant, but in the case of this employment, it shall be determined by separately reviewing the results of the evaluation, etc.

③ In addition to setting the period from April 4, 2016 or from May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff’s labor contract concluded with the Intervenor, as seen earlier, provides that “if a new labor contract is not concluded by the expiration date of the contract, the contract shall be deemed to be terminated under the agreement between the parties concerned” (Article 2(2)).

④ On March 13, 2017, around the expiration of the contract period of the intervenors No. 16 companies, the Plaintiff sent to the Human Resources Management Center for the Plaintiff a letter of objection requesting the Plaintiff to renew the contract with the Intervenor No. 16 companies, along with a work assessment report attached thereto.

⑤ On July 5, 2017, the Foundation for Broadcast Culture, which is the Plaintiff’s supervisory body, held the fifth provisional directors’ meeting on July 5, 2017. In the above provisional society, the Plaintiff’s vice president Nonparty 4 asked the Plaintiff’s opinion on the government’s guidelines to convert the status of the Plaintiff’s contractual workers into regular employees and the status thereof as follows.

There is a bearer contract position included in the main text, and there is a short-term contract position. An inorganic contract position is a member of the suspension from office, and actually guarantees the retirement age. There is a person who has entered the dispatched company for two years, and there is also a person who has entered the company with a two-year contract in the company. In the same case, I are selected by a two-year contract, and it is possible to re-consign the contract with the results following the two-year contract. It is not against MBC to require the government to become a full-time employee.

④ On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with Nonparty 5, a franchise, with the term of the contract from May 8, 2018 to February 28, 2019, even in addition to the intervenors, and Nonparty 5 was specially employed as a general partner on February 2019.

4) Determination

A) Taking into account the following circumstances revealed in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is difficult to view that the contractual term stipulated in the labor contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor does not expire in the form of a contract. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, in principle, the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is terminated naturally without separate measures depending on the termination of the contractual term.

○ Unlike the public notice of employment by the Intervenor’s transfer or the public notice of new entry after the transfer of the Intervenor, the Plaintiff specified the employment classification only from the public notice of employment in 2016 and 2017, which was selected by the Intervenor, as a contractual position, as a contract term of one year. In addition, as in the employment contract entered into with the Intervenor, the term of the contract is equally set as one year, and as long as the contract is terminated upon the expiration of the contract period, the pertinent employment contract is terminated.

○ Even if the Plaintiff’s internal review was conducted prior to the public announcement of the new employment in 2016, it is evident that the new employment in the pertinent year was intended to employ the Plaintiff for a fixed term of one year.

On the premise that the labor contract concluded with the intervenor at 16th time is naturally terminated according to the expiration of the contract term, the plaintiff also concluded a contract through the internal decision-making process before the termination of the contract.

In light of the contents discussed in the fifth interim society of the Foundation for Broadcast Culture in 2017, the Plaintiff explained that “the Plaintiff’s employment contract entered into with the Round is naturally terminated according to the expiration of the term of the contract” can be converted into a regular position on the premise that it can be converted into a two-year contract.

○ The Plaintiff has entered into an employment contract with a set of contract term even with a document written by the Plaintiff other than the Intervenor.

B) According to the evidence Nos. 82, 84, 82, 84 through 92, 116 through 119, i.e., the Plaintiff provided the Intervenor with education and training for several months as well as the employees who entered into an employment contract with no fixed contract period, and the Intervenor continued to be selected as the subject of education and training until the expiration of the period of the employment contract entered into with the Intervenor. However, considering the possibility of renewal of the employment contract between the Intervenors, it is difficult to readily conclude that the contract period stipulated in the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is merely a type of contract.

C) The intervenors asserted that: (a) Nonparty 1, who entered the Plaintiff with Nonparty 1 as well as the Intervenor, was recognized as having worked as a full-time employee in another broadcasting station prior to this, and was paid a higher salary than the Intervenor No. 16; and (b) as such, the grounds for taking into account the previous career are provided only for the Plaintiff’s personnel regulations that apply full-time workers; (c) thus, setting the period in the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is nothing more than in form. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Nonparty 1 was determined higher salary than the Intervenor. Moreover, even if Nonparty 1 entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff as well as the contract-based employees who were employed by the Plaintiff with Nonparty 1, taking into account the Plaintiff’s career experience (Article 74 of the Rules of Employment on Plaintiff Contract, the Plaintiff’s contract-based employees cannot be considered as having paid the Plaintiff higher salary than the Intervenor’s wage under the employment contract in the form prescribed in the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

D) This part of the Intervenor’s assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the intervenor's right of transition or right of renewal is recognized

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since a labor contract of the intervenors is concluded with a fixed period of time, the pertinent labor contract is terminated upon the expiration of the fixed period of time. The possibility of renewal of a labor contract that ends in the labor contract, Plaintiff’s rules of employment, personnel regulations, etc. of the Plaintiff and intervenors or of conversion to regular workers was not recognized. Moreover, there is no need for the Plaintiff to grant the Intervenor trust in conversion to regular workers or renewal of a labor contract to the Intervenor. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s right to transition or renewal is not recognized.

2) Relevant legal principles

In principle, the status of an employee who entered into a labor contract with a fixed period of time shall be terminated as a matter of course upon the expiration of the fixed period of time. However, a labor contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements despite the expiration of the term of validity in the labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc., or when considering the various circumstances surrounding labor relations even if there is no such provision, in a case where the trust between the parties to the labor contract has been formed that the labor contract shall be renewed upon the fulfillment of certain requirements, and the right of legitimate expectation to renew the labor contract may be renewed accordingly, the employer’s refusal of the renewal of the labor contract in violation of such provision has no same effect as the unfair dismissal. In this case,

Likewise, a labor contract, rules of employment, collective agreement, etc. provides that a fixed-term worker shall be converted to an employee without a fixed period of time when a certain condition is met through personnel evaluation, etc. at the time of the expiration of the contract term of a fixed-term worker. In full view of various circumstances surrounding the labor relationship in question, such as the contents of the labor contract and the motive and background leading up to the execution of the labor contract, the standards for conversion into an employee with no fixed period of time, etc., whether or not the establishment of requirements or procedures related to the employment contract, the status thereof, and the details of the work performed by the employee, etc., if there is a trust that if the parties to the labor contract meet the specific requirements between the parties to the contract, the employer may be converted to an employee with no fixed period of time, without a reasonable reason, and even if the employer rejects the conversion into an employee without a fixed period of time and notifies the termination of the labor contract, the subsequent employment relationship shall be deemed the same as the conversion into an employee with no fixed period of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du

3) Determination

A) The following facts are as seen earlier.

① Around January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff discussed whether it is necessary to hire a contract-based letter, and discussed that the contract term of the Round will be set as one year, but the Plaintiff may conclude an additional one-year renewal contract by examining the evaluation results, etc.

② In 2016 and 2017, the Plaintiff stated that “it is possible to extend the contract according to the evaluation,” and “it is possible to change the type of employment according to the MBC internal standards, such as future evaluation.”

③ The intervenors, around April 2017, concluded a re-contract with the Plaintiff without exception.

④ On July 5, 2017, Nonparty 4, who had worked as the vice president of the Plaintiff, respondeded to Nonparty 4’s opinion on the government’s guidelines that he would convert the Plaintiff’s contractual workers into regular workers in the fifth temporary society for the Foundation for Broadcast Culture, which was held on July 5, 2017, that “in the same case, he was extracted by two-year contract, and thereafter he re-consigning the results.”

⑤ The Plaintiff, prior to the employment of the Intervenor, employed the Intervenor as a full-time employee in 2013, but after the employment of the Intervenor, in 2018, the Plaintiff newly hired the Intervenor as a full-time employee.

6) The Plaintiff provided the Intervenor with education and training for several months as well as the members who entered into an employment contract with no fixed period of time. Some of the intervenors were selected as the subject of continuous education and training until the expiration of the period of the employment contract.

7) Article 10(1)4 of the Personnel Regulations of the Plaintiff stipulates that a person who has worked in a contractual position for a certain period of time and has excellent work performance may be employed through a special screening, such as document screening. According to Article 8 of the Personnel Regulations of the Plaintiff and Article 4(1) [Attachment] of the Delegation Rule, the appointment of an employee is the authority of the president, but the director-general may express his/her opinion thereon.

B) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of evidence No. 5, evidence No. 6-2, evidence No. 11 to Eul, evidence No. 24, evidence No. 44, evidence No. 58 through Eul, evidence No. 77 through Eul No. 79, evidence No. 94 through Eul No. 115, evidence No. 120 through Eul, and evidence No. 138, evidence No. 172, evidence No. 172, and evidence No. 3 of non-party 3's testimony and the overall purport of oral argument.

① The final selection of a new Round before the Plaintiff announced the new Round in 2016 is 2013. The screening procedure publicly notified by the Plaintiff at the time is as follows.

Preliminary-type 1 interview in the occupational categories included in the main text and the third interview document Kamera test (working interview/humanity test) (capacity interview/Apology test) (final interview) - ○○○○ (including carmera test) (including a carmera test) (including a test)

(2) In the report on the management evaluation of cultural broadcasting published by the Foundation for Broadcast Culture in 2016, an explanation was presented that the contract staff in 2016 increased to 103 persons compared to the preceding year and led to 305 persons, one of the reasons why "a part of the duties, such as a meteorite, was employed as a contract position for the verification prior to regular appointment. In this case, the regular appointment shall be actively reviewed after the lapse of a certain period."

③ Nonparty 6, who had worked as the Director General of the Korea Transportation Agency for most of the participants during the most recent years, expressed that “the intervenors were selected as the same process as the previous regular employees, performed the same work as the previous regular employees after their entry, and the working environment, such as wages, was guaranteed at the level equal to the previous regular employees. The Plaintiff was a policy to evaluate the performance of the intervenors’ respective employees, thereby making a re-contract or conversion into regular employees as long as there is no significant lack of ability or lack of grounds for disqualification, and accordingly, the intervenors were re-contracted on 16th regular employees. Although it was not clearly stipulated in the labor contract, the Intervenor was not clearly stipulated in the labor contract, but the management’s positive consensus was formed with respect to the re-election and conversion into regular employees, and the majority of the intervenors were judged to have been reappointed for the same period.” For the same period, the Plaintiff expressed his opinion to the same effect as Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8, etc. who had worked in the Asian Party.

④ Nonparty 1, who entered into an employment contract with the Intervenor No. 16 had a fixed period of time with the Intervenor, worked as ○○○ Broadcasting (△△△△) regular employees for the period of four years prior thereto, and Nonparty 1 stated that, with respect to the reasons for applying for the Plaintiff’s new employment since 2016, Nonparty 1 stated that “it was possible to change the type of employment in the employment notice,” the process of disclosure recruitment was the same as that of the Plaintiff’s employment in 2013 regular employees, and that there was a consensus that the job group of the 3rd Amba in public wave will naturally be converted into regular employees by considering that all of the job group is a full-time employee.” In addition, Nonparty 1 stated that, while on behalf of the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 stated that “Isn is a public bond, not a contractual position.”

⑤ In 2008 and 2013, the Plaintiff promoted the recruitment process through the Internet media, such as the Plaintiff’s website, page “MBC Language Korea” page in 2016 and 2017.

6. The intervenors entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff and received equal treatment in the course of performing their existing regular employees as follows:

At the time of entry of the Intervenor No. 17th of 2017, the Intervenor was introduced as the 16th of 16th of 2017, to which the Intervenor was employed, without distinguishing it from the existing regular employees (Evidence B, No. 58). The Intervenor was assigned a business space within the Plaintiff’s office (Evidence B, No. 59, No. 60) without distinguishing it from the existing regular employees (Evidence B, No. 61, No. 62).

The intervenors of the Republic of Korea: (a) inside the part of the Plaintiff’s existing regular patition and post-employment and (b) or formation of private friendship (Evidence Nos. 70 through 72 through B; (c) Nos. 74, B or 122, B or 136 through B or 138); and (d) the Plaintiff’s internal deliberations on the program conducted by the intervenors were mentioned as “new patition”; (b) within the part of the Plaintiff’s internal affairs on the program conducted by the intervenors; (c) without distinction from the existing regular patition in the assignment of the internal affairs inside the territory of the Ireland (Evidence No. 73; (d) No. 123; (e) No. 126 through 130; and (e) No. 16); (e) the Intervenor or the Intervenor participated in the event of the Plaintiff’s domestic patition, etc. from time to time to time to time to time to time to time; (e) the Intervenor or the Intervenor’s participation in the first 15th 15th event.

C. The participants were introduced externally as the Plaintiff’s new news service without distinguishing it from the existing regular news service, such as the Plaintiff’s website, online media, and news service, etc., and mainly began to run the news program with high recognition (Evidence Nos. 63 through 69, Evidence No. 75, evidence Nos. 77 through 79, and evidence Nos. 94 through 101). The Defendant 9 was registered as the Plaintiff’s access source in the news service around February 2017 (Evidence No. 104, No. 105, No. 105).

㉣ 특히 피고보조참가인 6은 근로계약이 종료된 뒤인 2018. 4. 4. 새벽 및 2018. 4. 8. 아침 방송에 출연하도록 배정받기도 하였다(을나 제102, 103호증).

Compared to this, the intervenors received welfare benefits, such as cultural cards, corporate cards, and parliamentary subsidies, including basic pay, self-driving subsidies, performance improvement incentives, annual allowances, and performance-based pay, as compared to existing regular employees (Evidence B, No. 106 through B, No. 113, No. 172).

The intervenors of the L/C and the Intervenor’s Intervenor 5 and the Intervenor 6 paid incentives according to the results of the personnel evaluation conducted until February 24, 2017, including “S”, “A”, “B”, and “C” during the period from April 2016 to June 2017. The Intervenor 5 and the Intervenor 6 received incentives according to the results of the personnel evaluation conducted by the time of February 24, 2017 (No. 114 and 115).

7) In 2016, the Plaintiff was newly employed as a contractual worker in the field of artistic arts and drama creation, but converted all of the relevant workers into regular workers after the special employment process. The term of the contract for the recruitment of workers in the field of artistic arts and drama creation in 2016 shall be one year, but “it is possible to extend one-year contract according to evaluation,” and “the preferential treatment for applicants” was indicated as “the first document type exemption benefit in the case of final employees, and actively reflects the work performance and active reflection within the term of the contract at the stage after the document screening.” The next year, in the public announcement for the recruitment of workers in the field of artistic and drama creation in 2017, the term of the contract was just one year, but it is possible to convert the “the preferential treatment for applicants in accordance with internal standards, such as the evaluation of general service,” as “the preferential treatment for applicants.”

8) The Personnel Regulations of the Plaintiff recognizes the possibility of converting the Plaintiff’s employees into the position of general service, annual salary, work, contract, etc., and recognizes the possibility of converting a person employed as a contractual worker into the position of annual salary, work, etc. (Articles 4, 5, 28, and 29). However, there is no provision regarding the procedure for converting a worker employed as a contractual worker into the position of general service (Article 4, 5, 28, and 29). However, there is no provision regarding the procedure for converting the worker employed

9. The general service among the workers belonging to the Plaintiff shall be classified into classes of director-general, director-general, vice-general, and members, and the annual salary, office-based, etc. shall be classified into classes of appointment, appointment, and employee. The letter belonging to the Plaintiff shall be classified into classes of director-general, director-general, vice-director, employee, etc.

C) Comprehensively considering the following circumstances revealed by taking account of the facts found in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, a trust relationship was formed between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor No. 16, with respect to the conversion of the Intervenor No. 16 into a regular position based on the result of the evaluation of the results of screening and the period of service through a special recruitment procedure. The trust relationship was formed between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor No. 17, and the Intervenor No. 16, with respect to the renewal of the employment contract, the Intervenor No. 16, as well as the Intervenor No. 16, had the right to expect the renewal of the employment contract.

The Plaintiff’s new admission notice in 2016 and 2017, which served as the basis for determining whether to provide support for the employment screening of the Plaintiff’s new admission letter, clearly stated that “it is possible to change the type of employment according to the Plaintiff’s internal standards, such as future evaluation,” and that such notice may convert contractual workers employed by the Plaintiff through the relevant screening procedures into regular workers based on the results of the evaluation during the period of service, as in the employment notice in other fields of work, including arts and drama early withdrawal.

○○ In 2016 and 2017, the new employment notice was referred to as “may extend a contract according to evaluation” while specifying the term of the contract as one year, and in fact, the intervenors of the 16th company entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff without exception on April 2017. On May 2017, the participants of the 17 company who entered into the labor contract with the Plaintiff were expected to renew the labor contract on the basis of the fact that the labor contract was renewed without exception by the intervenors of the 16 company companies. As seen thereafter, as seen earlier, at the time of Nonparty 6, who was the Director-General, referred to the renewal of the labor contract to the intervenors of the 17 company company.

The screening process in which ○○ intervenors were selected is not significantly different from the screening process that the Plaintiff intended to employ a new letter as a full-time employee in 2013 and 2018. The Plaintiff also conducted a written test, such as the Kamera test and 2-3 interviews, and a written test, whenever the Plaintiff selects a new letter of admission. The Intervenor was selected through a two-time interview, including document screening, 2016 and document screening, Kamera test, and writing, in 2017. The Intervenor was selected through a two-time interview. This constitutes a screening procedure of ordinary difficulty of the Plaintiff’s recruitment of a new letter of admission.

According to the personnel regulations of the Plaintiff, the employees belonging to the Plaintiff are classified into general service, annual salary, work, and contractual service. The existing regular employees belonging to the Plaintiff appear to be classified into general service in consideration of their classes. In addition, the number of employees employed as contractual workers may be converted into annual salary, work, etc. whose retirement age is guaranteed, and if their work performance is excellent, it may be converted into general service through special employment procedures. In fact, the employees employed as contract workers in the field of arts and dramama who were employed in the same period as the intervenors 16th may be converted into general service through special employment procedures. In full view of the details of the rules on the personnel affairs of the Plaintiff and the actual status of the Plaintiff’s regular employment conversion, it is difficult for the Intervenor who entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiff for a specified period and has the possibility to be converted into general service based on the results of evaluation of the work period and the results of special employment procedures.

With respect to the intervenors who entered into an employment contract for a fixed period, the Plaintiff was positively and positively reviewed the means of converting them to regular workers by considering their work ability. Nonparty 4, who worked as the vice president of the Plaintiff, explained the treatment of contractual workers in the Foundation for Broadcast Culture around July 2017, immediately after the Intervenor entered the 17th company, and also mentioned the Intervenor as “the possibility of converting the Intervenor into regular workers after having been assigned to work for two years.” Considering this point, Nonparty 6, who was the director general of the Donuri-gu Round and the director general, appears to have mentioned that it is possible to convert the Plaintiff into regular workers and renew the employment contract to the intervenors several times. In view of the fact that Nonparty 6 was authorized to present his opinion on the employment of the Plaintiff’s president, it is reasonable to deem that Nonparty 6 had a considerable trust for the Intervenor by referring to the transition to regular workers and the renewal of the employment contract.

○ The intervenors externally and externally conducted broadcast services and other services incidental thereto, when receiving treatment equivalent to the existing regular transport services, which belong to the Plaintiff. The intervenors, as a matter of course, anticipated to perform the Plaintiff’s major broadcast services as a matter of course, are expected to be conducted repeatedly and continuously, and for this purpose, the intervenors were engaged in the Plaintiff’s education and training for a considerable period of time. Although it was inevitable for the Intervenor to secure the level of ability necessary for the Plaintiff to perform the broadcast services, it is difficult to expect that the Intervenor provided the Intervenor with such long-term education and training, unless the Plaintiff intended to maintain an employment relationship with the Intervenor. In particular, the Intervenor 6 was designated to contribute to the broadcast after the termination of the employment contract, which would be difficult to understand if the Plaintiff did not intend to maintain an employment relationship with the Intervenor.

D) Meanwhile, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8, and the testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by non-party 9 and non-party 3.

① Article 2(2) of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor and Article 68 subparag. 3 of the Rules of Employment of the Plaintiff’s Contract Service Article 68 of the Rules on Contracts to Which the Plaintiff concluded with the contract-employed worker as a matter of course shall terminate the contract upon the expiration of the contract period. There is no clear provision on the renewal of the contract between the Plaintiff and the

② The Plaintiff, who had previously been employed as a new employee before the Intervenor, had not been converted to a regular employee after being employed as a newly employed employee for a fixed period.

③ Since 2012, the Plaintiff transferred 14 full-time tour and 14 persons from the date of appointment of the Intervenor to a department other than the Nagoya Bureau to perform any business other than the broadcast run by the Plaintiff. During the same period, 10 full-time tour and 10 persons were retired from the Plaintiff’s office. From the foregoing transferred 10 persons, the 10 persons were returned to the ASEAN Bureau on December 2017, the Intervenor was employed.

E) However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff mentioned the possibility of the conversion of the Plaintiff into regular positions and the renewal of the employment contract from the recruitment announcement phase, and actually renewed the employment contract of the intervenors 16 companies, and the Plaintiff’s vice president and the Secretary-General expressed the possibility of the conversion into regular positions and the renewal of the employment contract externally, and even if considering the number of participants returned to the ASEAN on or around December 2017, it is difficult to deem that the number of participants of the Plaintiff IBB increased much than before the appointment of the intervenors, and the Plaintiff appears to have already taken into account the possibility of their return when employing the intervenors, the mere fact recognized in paragraph (d) does not hinder the judgment that recognition of the transition right or the renewal right is granted to the Intervenor.

F) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Whether there are reasonable grounds for refusal of conversion to regular positions or renewal of employment contracts

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff conducted a special employment for only those who have been employed in 2016 and 2017 in order to select a person to maintain an employment relationship, and as a result, Nonparty 2 was selected as the most excellent result. A reasonable ground exists to refuse to convert a contract into a regular position or to renew a contract of employment for those participants who failed to pass the special employment procedure.

2) Determination

A) The following facts may be acknowledged either as seen earlier, or as a whole by taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 16 and 38, as well as the voice of Eul evidence No. 163, the witness Non-party 9, and Non-party 3’s testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings.

① Article 9 of the Personnel Regulations of the Plaintiff provides that “New employment of employees shall be made through an open competitive examination,” and Article 10(1)4 provides that “If a person who has worked for a certain period of time or more is employed as a contractual position and has excellent work performance, he/she may be employed through a special screening, such as document screening.”

② The intervenors had completed the same type of screening procedure (special recruitment procedure) at the same time as the employment screening procedure was publicly announced by the Plaintiff in 2018, and the contract workers in the field of artistic arts and drama creation who were enrolled in the same time as the intervenors were transferred to full-time employees through a special employment procedure.

③ In 2018, the Plaintiff decided to select three new teachers from the time of the public announcement of employment, but did not notify the outside as well as the director-general of the Arabicn. At the time of the completion of the screening procedure based on the public announcement, the Plaintiff decided to select one of the contractual workers, including the intervenors, and two of the applicants pursuant to the public announcement of employment.

④ Management, including the Plaintiff president, was replaced on or around December 2017, but, unlike the previous one, the new management took a policy to refrain from renewal of the labor contract for the contractual workers employed in 2016 and 2017, including the intervenors. Nonparty 9 was appointed as the Director General of the Arabic on December 12, 2017, and became aware of the fact. Accordingly, Nonparty 9 requested the management, including the Director General of the Management Headquarters, to conduct a special employment procedure for the contractual workers, and to select five of them including some of them.

⑤ There was no reason to regard the Intervenor as work performance since it did not properly evaluate the Intervenor at 17th time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, while undergoing the special employment procedure, did not consider the Intervenor’s work performance for the Intervenor, determined the fall solely based on the result of the evaluation of the screening procedure.

B) Taking into account the following circumstances revealed in full view of the foregoing facts, the special employment procedure for the intervenors in the health class did not follow the procedures stipulated in the Plaintiff Personnel Management Regulations. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that there is a reasonable ground to refuse to convert the Intervenor into regular positions or to renew his/her employment contract.

The personnel regulations of the Plaintiff determine the open competitive examination for many applicants, and recognize special employment as a separate method of employment. According to this, the special employment and other screening procedures are different from the subject of evaluation or evaluation criteria. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff did not distinguish the contract-based Round from those who applied for the new contract-based Round in 2018 in terms of the evaluation method or the number of selected applicants.

The personnel regulations of the Plaintiff stipulate that “persons with excellent work performance among those who have worked for a certain period of time or longer as contract workers” is subject to special employment, and the purport is to include work performance as evaluation factors when those who worked under a labor contract concluded for a fixed period of time undergo special employment procedures for the participants. Since the Plaintiff had already worked for more than nine months on March 2018, the Intervenor was entitled to secure work performance as one of the criteria for special employment evaluation at the latest, since he had already worked for more than nine months. However, the Plaintiff appears to have intentionally excluded such efforts.

In particular, the participants of 16 companies did not appear to have any difference between the entire employees of the contract workers in the field of arts and drama learning who were employed for the same time and the actual status of the transition of regular workers. However, there is no reason to view that there is a difference between the conclusion of the labor contract and the actual status of the transition of regular workers between the two business areas to the extent that it can be able to obtain such results.

C) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Considering the various circumstances surrounding the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, a legitimate expectation is recognized for the Intervenor to convert the Intervenor into an employee with no fixed period of time or renew the employment contract. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff rejected the Intervenor’s conversion into regular workers or the renewal of the employment contract without reasonable grounds, but is not effective. The instant decision on reexamination is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Intervenor joining the Defendant: Omitted

Judges Long-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Presiding Judge)