Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 78다1753

Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case퇴직금

Decided1979. 04. 10. Court대법원Worker won
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

This case involved a local government daily/temporary worker (지방잡급직 공무원) who was repeatedly appointed and dismissed every six months, yet continuously worked for 14 years, and subsequently claimed severance pay (퇴직금). The Supreme Court ruled that even if the worker was not covered under the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법), severance pay must still be paid under the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법). This precedent emphasizes the substance of continuous employment over the formal, repeated appointment periods.

Key takeaways
  • CaseA local government daily/temporary worker was repeatedly appointed and dismissed every six months but actually worked continuously for 14 years, and then claimed severance pay.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that because the worker had, in substance, worked continuously despite the formal appointment periods, severance pay must be paid under the Labor Standards Act.
  • LessonEven if short-term contracts are repeated, if the actual working relationship is continuous, the worker is entitled to severance pay just like a regular employee.
Issues
  • Whether the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) applies to a local government daily/temporary worker (지방잡급직 공무원) who was repeatedly appointed and dismissed every six months
  • Whether a public worker not covered by the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법) can still claim severance pay (퇴직금)
Key reasoning

Even when a worker's appointment and dismissal are formally repeated at fixed intervals, if the worker in fact continues working without interruption, a genuine ongoing employment relationship exists. In such cases, the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) applies regardless of the formal contract structure, and the employer bears an obligation to pay severance pay (퇴직금). The Court prioritized the actual substance of the continuous work relationship over the nominal limitation of each six-month appointment term. This approach prevents employers from using repeated short-term appointments as a device to avoid statutory severance obligations.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

A local temporary government employee ("지방잡급직 공무원") who, due to the employment period being limited to less than six months under Article 4(3) of the Local Temporary Employees Regulation ("지방잡급직원규정"), was repeatedly appointed and dismissed while continuously working for several years as a maternal and child health worker at a county public health center, is entitled to receive retirement pay calculated at an average wage of 30 days' pay per year of continuous service pursuant to Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act ("근로기준법"), even though such employee is not eligible for retirement pay under the Public Officials Pension Act ("공무원연금법").

Full text (English, AI translation) 2,018 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee] Kim Bok-hee

[Defendant, Appellant] Dalseong-gun (Dalseong County)

[Original Judgment] Daegu District Court Judgment 78Na129, rendered July 19, 1978

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant's litigation representative are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the fact that the Plaintiff, having been appointed as a maternal and child health worker at the Dalseong-gun Public Health Center under the Defendant County on September 19, 1963, continuously worked as a miscellaneous-post (japgeup) public employee of the Defendant County for 14 years and 11 days until her retirement on September 30, 1977. On this basis, the court below held that even though the Plaintiff was not subject to contribution payments under the Public Officials Pension Act (공무원연금법), and even though, pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Regulations on Miscellaneous-Post Employees (잡급직원규정), the term of employment for miscellaneous-post employees is limited to less than six months, in this case where the appointments and dismissals were repeated such that the Plaintiff in fact continuously worked for the aforementioned period, in light of the purport of Articles 11 and 28 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), the Defendant County is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a retirement allowance calculated at no less than 30 days' average wages for each year of continuous service.

Having examined the record, the above determination of the court below is justified, and no error as argued in the grounds of appeal can be found therein.

The argument cannot be accepted.

Accordingly, since this appeal is without merit, it is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. The Justices unanimously render judgment as stated in the Order.

Supreme Court Justice Lee Il-gyu (Presiding Judge), Min Mun-gi, Kang An-hee, Jeong Tae-won

【판결요지】

지방잡급직원규정 제4조 제3항에 고용기간이 6개월 미만으로 제한된 관계로 임명과 해임을 반복하여 수년간 계속하여 군 보건소의 모자보건요원으로 근무한 지방잡급직 공무원은, 비록 공무원연금법에 의한 퇴직금 지급대상이 아니라고 할지라도, 근로기준법 제28조에 따라 계속근로연수 1년에 대하여 30일분씩의 평균임금으로 계산한 퇴직금을 받을 수 있다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제11조, 제14조, 제28조, 공무원연금법 제2조 제1항 제1호 단서, 지방공무원법 제41조의2, 지방잡급직원규정 제4조 제3항

【주문】·【이유】 전문 752자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】 김복희

【피고, 상 고 인】 달성군

【원 판 결】 대구지방법원 1978.7.19. 선고 78나129 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

상고소송비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 피고 소송수행자의 상고이유를 본다.

원심판결이유에 의하면 원심은 원고가 1963. 9. 19 피고 군 산하 달성군보건소의 모자보건요원으로 임명된 이래, 1977. 9. 30 퇴직하기까지 14년 11일 동안 피고 군의 잡급직공무원으로 계속 근무한 사실을 확정하고, 그렇다면 비록 원고가 공무원연금법에 의한 기여금 불입대상자가 아니고, 또 잡급직원은, 잡급직원규정 제4조 제3항에 의하여, 그 고용기간이 6개월 미만으로 제한되어 있다고 하더라도 그 임명과 해임이 반복되어 사실상 위의 기간동안 계속 근무한 이 사건에 있어서는 근로기준법 제11조, 제28조의 규정 취지에 비추어, 피고 군은 원고에게 적어도, 계속근로년수 1년에 대하여 30일분씩의 평균임금으로 계산한 퇴직급여금을 지급할 의무가 있다 고 하였는바, 기록에 의하여 살펴보니, 원심의 위와 같은 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 소론과 같은 잘못이 있음을 찾아볼 수 없다.

논지는 받아들일 수 없다.

따라서 이 상고는 이유없으므로 이를 기각하기로 하고, 상고소송비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하여 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다

대법관 이일규(재판장) 민문기 강안희 정태원

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
84나442 · 광주고법 1985-04-10
퇴직금청구사건
#2
80다3263 · 대법원 1981-09-08
Retirement Pay
#3
2021나10159 · 제주지방법원 2022-06-08
Wages
#4
2021다218083 · 대법원 2022-02-17
Wages [Case Concerning the Starting Point of the Continuous
#5
86다카1347 · 대법원 1986-10-28
Retirement Pay

Cases citing this decision

2004다29736 · 대법원 2006-12-07
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Claim by Cram School Instructors
2004나5882 · 대구지법 2005-04-20
Wages
97다17575 · 대법원 1997-12-26
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case
93다26168 · 대법원 1995-07-11
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Calculation Case
91다45653 · 대법원 1992-04-14
Wages, etc.

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)