Open Decision Ledger · Labour & industrial accidents
Fixed-term Act does not directly apply to a teaching assistant with civil-servant status
Supreme Court, Nov. 14, 2019, 2015Du52531 (judgment)
Case name: 해고무효확인
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a teaching assistant was appointed by the head of a national university under the Education Public Officials Act and holds the status of an education public official or a specified-career public official, can Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act on Protection of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees apply directly to the public-law employment relation between the State and that teaching assistant?
Holding
No. A teaching assistant appointed through the prescribed procedure by the head of a university holds, during the statutory term, the status of an education public official or a specified-career public official, and that relation is a public-law relation of service, not a private-law contract of employment. Because that status is lost the moment the statutory one-year term expires, because regaining it requires a fresh appointment act, and because pay and other conditions are basically fixed by statute, Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Act cannot be applied directly to that relation.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이를 국가와 공무원신분인 조교 간의 근무관계에 곧바로 적용하는 것은 임용주체의 임명행위에 의해 설정되는 공법상 근무관계의 성질은 물론, 조교의 근무기간이 1년으로 법정된 취지 등에도 반하는 것이어서 허용될 수 없다고 봄이 타당하다.
Unofficial English translation
It is reasonable to view that applying it directly to the employment relationship between the State and an assistant who is a public official cannot be permitted, as it runs counter not only to the nature of the public-law employment relationship established by the appointing authority's act of appointment, but also to the intent underlying the statutory designation of the assistant's term of service as one year.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
일정한 자격을 갖추고 소정의 절차에 따라 대학의 장에 의하여 임용된 조교는 법정된 근무기간 동안 신분이 보장되는 교육공무원법상의 교육공무원 내지 국가공무원법상의 특정직공무원 지위가 부여되고, 근무관계는 사법상의 근로계약관계가 아닌 공법상 근무관계에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
An assistant who possesses certain qualifications and is appointed by the head of a university pursuant to the prescribed procedure is granted the status of an educational public official under the Educational Public Officials Act or a specified-position public official under the National Public Officials Act, with the status being guaranteed during the statutory term of service, and the employment relationship corresponds to a public-law employment relationship, not a private-law employment contract relationship.
Factors
- 법정된 근무기간 동안 신분이 보장되는 교육공무원법상의 교육공무원 내지 국가공무원법상의 특정직공무원 지위가 부여되고
- 사법상의 근로계약관계가 아닌 공법상 근무관계에 해당한다
- 1년으로 법정된 근무기간이 만료하면 바로 지위를 상실하게 될 뿐만 아니라
- 임용주체의 의사결정에 기한 임명행위로써 공무원의 신분을 새롭게 부여받을 것을 요한다
- 공무원의 ‘근무조건 법정주의’에 따라 기본적으로 법령에 의해 권리의무의 내용이 정해지고 있다
Unofficial English translation
• the status of an educational public official under the Educational Public Officials Act or a specified-position public official under the National Public Officials Act is granted, with the status being guaranteed during the statutory term of service, and
• the employment relationship corresponds to a public-law employment relationship, not a private-law employment contract relationship
• not only is the status lost immediately upon the expiration of the term of service statutorily fixed at one year, but
• it requires the person to newly acquire the status of a public official through an act of appointment based on the appointing authority's decision
• the content of rights and obligations is basically determined by statutes and regulations, under the 'principle of statutory determination of the terms and conditions of service' for public officials
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2002. 11. 8. 선고 2001두3051 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3051 decided November 8, 2002
Decisions referred to
대법원 2002. 11. 8. 선고 2001두3051 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
By what record does a court decide that a teaching assistant actually acquired the status of an education public official or specified-career public official on appointment?
The Gwangju High Court's judgment after the remand will show how the actual acquisition of civil-servant status is decided on the record. Any amendment to Article 5-2(4) of the Education Public Officials Appointment Decree or to Article 4(1) or 4(2) of the Act on Protection of Fixed-term and Part-time Employees would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “By what record does a court decide that a teaching assistant actually acquired the status of an education public official or specified-career public official on appointment?” vs Independent “Can a university assistant with civil-servant status acquire a legally protected expectation of reappointment through repeated appointments?”
The primary reading asks how a court proves actual acquisition of status on appointment, while the independent reading asks whether repeated appointments create a protected expectation of reappointment.
이를 국가와 공무원신분인 조교 간의 근무관계에 곧바로 적용하는 것은 임용주체의 임명행위에 의해 설정되는 공법상 근무관계의 성질은 물론, 조교의 근무기간이 1년으로 법정된 취지 등에도 반하는 것이어서 허용될 수 없다고 봄이 타당하다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 27 August 2015 (2015Nu5558), found that the plaintiff was hired at the national university on 1 March 2007 as a 'foundation contract employee', then appointed a 'teaching assistant' from 1 March 2010 with a one-year term, reappointed yearly until 28 February 2014, and notified of automatic retirement around 1 March 2014. It held that as a fixed-term worker who had worked over two years, the plaintiff was deemed a worker under an indefinite contract by Article 4(2), so the retirement notice was a wrongful dismissal violating Article 23(1) of the Labour Standards Act and was void. It rejected the defendant's argument that the exception in Article 4(1) proviso barred the conversion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court reversed. The court below should have examined whether the plaintiff actually acquired education public official or national government servant status on being appointed a teaching assistant, and on that basis whether Articles 4(1) and 4(2) still applied, and whether the retirement notice was merely a notification that the term had expired rather than a dismissal ending the relation of service. It did neither, so it misapprehended the law on the status of a teaching assistant at a national school and on the application of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) and failed to conduct the necessary examination, and the case was remanded on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A person who worked at a national or local government institution on a private-law contract of employment without acquiring education public official or specified-career public official status.
- A person engaged as a 'foundation contract employee' before 1 March 2010, a period in which the plaintiff held no teaching-assistant appointment.
- A teaching assistant whose pay and other conditions are not basically fixed by the Education Public Officials Act or the National Government Service Act and the enactments made under their delegation.
Record verification notes
Check the appointment record: whether the head of the university appointed the person under Article 26(1) of the Education Public Officials Act, whether the qualifications under Article 8 were met, and whether the one-year term under Article 5-2(4) of the Education Public Officials Appointment Decree was kept. Separate the 'foundation contract employee' years from the teaching-assistant years, since the Court's reasoning attaches to the latter. Then set the retirement notice itself against the question the Court left open, whether it recorded the expiry of the term or ended the relation of service.
From the official text
Points at issue
교육공무원법 등에 따라 조교로 임용되어 교육공무원 내지 특정직공무원의 신분을 부여받는 경우, 기간의 정함이 없는 근로자로의 전환에 관한 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항, 제2항을 국가와 공무원신분인 조교 간의 근무관계에 곧바로 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees, etc. concerning the conversion to an employee without a fixed term may be applied directly to the employment relationship between the State and an assistant who is a public official, in cases where the assistant is appointed as an assistant pursuant to the Educational Public Officials Act, etc. and is granted the status of an educational public official or a specified-position public official (negative)
Summary of the holding
국가공무원법 제2조 제2항 제2호, 교육공무원법 제2조 제1항 제1호, 제3항, 제8조, 제26조 제1항, 제34조 제2항, 교육공무원임용령 제5조의2 제4항에 의하면, 일정한 자격을 갖추고 소정의 절차에 따라 대학의 장에 의하여 임용된 조교는 법정된 근무기간 동안 신분이 보장되는 교육공무원법상의 교육공무원 내지 국가공무원법상의 특정직공무원 지위가 부여되고, 근무관계는 사법상의 근로계약관계가 아닌 공법상 근무관계에 해당한다. 이와 같이 교육공무원 내지 특정직공무원의 신분을 부여받는 조교는 1년으로 법정된 근무기간이 만료하면 바로 지위를 상실하게 될 뿐만 아니라, 위 기간 만료 후에 다시 종전 지위를 취득하기 위해서는 임용주체의 의사결정에 기한 임명행위로써 공무원의 신분을 새롭게 부여받을 것을 요한다. 또한 조교에 대한 보수 등의 근무조건에 관하여는 교육공무원법 내지 국가공무원법과 그 위임에 따라 제정된 개별 법령이 적용됨으로써, 공무원인 조교의 근무관계에 관하여도 공무원의 ‘근무조건 법정주의’에 따라 기본적으로 법령에 의해 권리의무의 내용이 정해지고 있다. 이러한 사정들을 고려하면, 교육공무원 내지 특정직공무원의 신분보장을 받는 대신 근무기간이 1년으로 법정된 조교에 대하여는, ‘기간의 정함이 있는 근로계약을 체결한 근로자’에 대한 불합리한 차별을 시정하고 근로조건 보호를 강화함으로써 노동시장의 건전한 발전에 이바지하기 위한 목적에서 도입된 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘기간제법’이라 한다)이 그대로 적용된다고 볼 수 없다. 특히 기간제법 제4조 제1항, 제2항은 사용자가 기간제근로자를 사용할 수 있는 기간의 허용가능한 범위를 정함과 동시에 일정 요건하에 기간의 정함이 없는 근로계약을 체결한 근로자로 간주하는 규정으로서, 이를 국가와 공무원신분인 조교 간의 근무관계에 곧바로 적용하는 것은 임용주체의 임명행위에 의해 설정되는 공법상 근무관계의 성질은 물론, 조교의 근무기간이 1년으로 법정된 취지 등에도 반하는 것이어서 허용될 수 없다고 봄이 타당하다. 이는 국가 또는 지방자치단체의 기관에 대하여도 기간제법을 적용하도록 기간제법 제3조 제3항이 규정하고 있다거나, 공무원도 임금을 목적으로 근로를 제공하는 근로기준법상의 근로자라고 하여 달리 볼 것은 아니다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Provisions referred to
국가공무원법 제2조 제2항 제2호, 교육공무원법 제2조 제1항 제1호, 제3항, 제8조, 제26조 제1항, 제34조 제2항, 교육공무원임용령 제5조의2 제4항, 기간제 및 단시간근로자 보호 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제3항, 제4조 제1항, 제2항, 근로기준법 제2조 제1항 제1호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger