[Plaintiff, Appellant] Korea Railroad Corporation (Attorneys Law Firm (LLC) Hankyul Hanul and 1 other, Counsel for the plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Intervenor for the Defendant (Attorney Choi Seong-ho and 1 other, Counsel for the intervenor)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu33971 decided April 14, 2011
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal, to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
1. As to Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 and 2
A. In the case of an employee who has entered into a labor contract for a fixed term, upon expiration of that term, the employee's status as an employee naturally terminates, and in principle, if the labor contract is not renewed, the employee is automatically retired even without any expression of intent to refuse renewal. However, where the labor contract, employment rules, collective agreement, etc. contain a provision to the effect that the labor contract will be renewed if certain requirements are satisfied even upon expiration of the term, or even in the absence of such a provision, where, considering all the circumstances surrounding the employment relationship—including the content of the labor contract, the motive and circumstances leading to the conclusion of the labor contract, the criteria for renewal, whether and how the requirements or procedures for renewal have been established and their actual operation, and the content of the duties performed by the employee—a relationship of trust has been formed between the parties to the labor contract such that the contract will be renewed if certain requirements are met, thereby recognizing the employee's legitimate expectation that the labor contract may be renewed, then the employer's unjust refusal to renew the labor contract in violation of such expectation has no effect whatsoever, in the same manner as an unfair dismissal. In such a case, the labor relationship after expiration of the term is identical to a renewal of the previous labor contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du1729 decided April 14, 2011).
Meanwhile, Article 4 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees (기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률, hereinafter the "Fixed-Term Employment Act"), enacted on December 21, 2006 and effective from July 1, 2007, provides in Paragraph 1 that "an employer may employ a fixed-term employee within a period not exceeding two years (in the case of repeated renewals, etc. of fixed-term labor contracts, within a period in which the total period of continuous employment does not exceed two years)," while setting forth in the proviso to Paragraph 1 exceptions permitting the use of a fixed-term employee beyond two years, and provides in Paragraph 2 that "where an employer employs a fixed-term employee for more than two years even though the grounds under the proviso to Paragraph 1 do not exist or have ceased to exist, such fixed-term employee shall be deemed to be an employee who has entered into a labor contract without a fixed term."
As set forth above, with the enforcement of the Fixed-Term Employment Act, an employer may employ a fixed-term employee within a period of two years, and if the total period of employment of a fixed-term employee exceeds two years, the fixed-term employee is deemed to be an employee without a fixed term; however, considering that the legislative purpose of these provisions is fundamentally to guarantee the status of employees by preventing the abuse of fixed-term labor contracts, it cannot be said that the mere enforcement of the Fixed-Term Employment Act excludes or restricts a legitimate expectation of renewal on the part of a fixed-term employee that had already been formed prior to its enforcement.
B. Having found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter the "Intervenor") had a legitimate expectation of renewal, citing the following: each of the employment contracts between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor provided that a final evaluation would be conducted upon expiration of the contract, and in fact, when the Plaintiff evaluated work performance and the Intervenor obtained a score sufficient for re-contracting, the Plaintiff renewed the contract with the Intervenor; the Intervenor had worked under annual renewals for a total of eight occasions, including the period of service at the Railroad Administration (the predecessor of the Plaintiff), prior to the refusal to renew at issue in this case; the Plaintiff's "Operational Rules for Professional Employees" (전문직 직원 운영세칙), which was in effect at the time of the labor contract at issue immediately preceding the refusal to renew, provided for work performance evaluations and stipulated that the contract would be extended if the final evaluation score was 75 points or higher upon evaluation of work performance, and further abolished the limitation on the total period of employment of professional employees while providing that contracts were to be concluded on a one-year basis, but that where employment for more than one year was necessary, the contract was to explicitly state that, absent special circumstances, the contract term would be deemed to have been continuously extended on a one-year basis upon re-contracting; and although the "Operational Rules for Professional Employees" was subsequently amended in a manner that retreated from the above-described strengthening of job security for professional employees, the amended Operational Rules did not apply to the labor contract at issue between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above, the determination of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in misapprehending the legal principles concerning the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation of renewal after the enforcement of the Fixed-Term Employment Act, or in failing to exhaust deliberation and misapprehending the legal principles concerning the recognition of a legitimate expectation of renewal.
2. As to Ground of Appeal No. 3
Having found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the court below determined, in effect, that the Plaintiff's refusal to renew the contract at issue, made for the purpose of avoiding the situation in which it would be required to convert the Intervenor into an employee without a fixed term pursuant to Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Fixed-Term Employment Act if it employed the Intervenor for more than two years, lacked reasonable grounds and thus constituted an unfair dismissal.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above, the determination of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in misapprehending the legal principles concerning reasonable grounds for refusal to renew or in mistaking the facts.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This decision is rendered by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the adjudication, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice), Min Il-yeong, Park Bo-yeong, Kim Shin (Justice in Charge)