Seoul High Court Decision on April 21, 2016, Case 2015nu64079 | |||||
* Plaintiff, Appellee: ○○○○ Broadcasting Corporation
* Defendant, Appellant: Chairman of the Central Labor Commission * Co-Defendant, Appellant: Kim ○○ 1. Facts: a. The plaintiff issued an announcement for an announcer recruitment around November 2012. The participant applied, passed the final interview, and was selected as the final candidate. The participant then entered into an internship contract with the plaintiff for the period from December 24, 2012, to January 23, 2013, and hosted several TV programs. b. After the end of the internship contract, the participant signed a fixed-term employment contract with the plaintiff for the period from January 24, 2013, to January 23, 2015, and continued hosting programs such as ○○○○. c. On January 7, 2015, the participant's immediate supervisors, the head of the ○○ production team and the director of the ○○ production department, evaluated the participant's work capability and attitude and reported the results to the plaintiff. The plaintiff terminated the employment relationship on January 24, 2015, citing the expiration of the participant's contract period. d. After the end of the participant's internship, there were no additional new hiring procedures other than evaluating the internship period and drafting a new employment contract. The participant's eligibility for the four major insurances was registered on December 24, 2012, and there was no process of recalculating this eligibility upon the end of the internship. e. Although the plaintiff had an internship period during the 2012 announcer recruitment, by the end of 2013, due to the increase in applicants, the plaintiff no longer set an internship period. 2. Court Judgment: a. Since the probationary employment contract involved providing labor and receiving wages, and since the probationary employment period and the contract employment period are continuous without interruption, it is reasonable to calculate whether the two-year limit prescribed by Article 4 of the Fixed-Term Employment Act has been exceeded by adding together the probationary and contract employment periods, even if there are some changes in the terms between the probationary and contract employment contracts. b. After the participant's internship period, no new hiring procedures were conducted between the plaintiff and the participant, other than drafting a new contract of employment. No adjustments were made for the loss of eligibility after the participant's insurance qualification registration on December 24,2012. c. Based on the plaintiff's announcer recruitment announcement and the contents of the internship contract, as well as the contract employment agreement, it appears that the plaintiff and the participant did not undergo new hiring procedures after the end of the internship period. Instead, they decided whether to renew the contract based on an evaluation of the work period, suggesting that the employment contract was renewed concurrently with the termination of the internship contract. Therefore, even though the participant became a permanent contract employee, the plaintiff's termination of the employment relationship based on the expiration of the employment contract period constitutes an unfair dismissal. The judgment of this Case 's retrial, which supports the same view, is lawful, and the plaintiff's arguments contesting this judgment are without merit. |
|||||
Download : 서울고법 2015누64079.pdf | |||||
<<
< 1 >
>>
|