[2] The case holding that where a document contains a name and seal of one of the labor and management, the content shall not have the effect as a collective agreement

[3] Where a decision to commence corporate restructuring is made, the right to enter into the collective agreement (=manager)

[2] The case holding that a collective agreement does not have effect where the document bears the name and seal of the chairperson of the union and the representative director of the company does not affix his name and seal to the document

[3] Where a decision to commence corporate reorganization is made, the authority to manage and dispose of the management and assets of the company pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act shall be vested in the administrator, not the representative director of the reorganization company, but the administrator of the collective agreement shall be in the position of the employer in labor relations. Therefore, the employer of the collective agreement is not the representative director, and the right to enter into the collective agreement for the reorganization company is not the representative director but the agreement between the union and

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, based on its employed evidence, the plaintiff was employed by 5th day from September 12, 1975 to 5th day of June 22, 1998 and retired from office. The defendant company commenced company reorganization procedure following the decision to commence company reorganization procedure of Seoul District Court on April 15, 1998 and the administrator of the defendant company was appointed, and the defendant company and the administrator did not pay 1,592,418 won as to the above company's bonus from 5th day of July 22, 1997 to 10th day of June 22, 198, and the defendant company did not consent to the above change of company's company's company's labor union's bonus management plan for the above 197th day of July 31, 197 to 197 to 30% of the above company's bonus management share return to the defendant company and 197th day of the above change of company's bonus management agreement.

If a collective agreement entered into with a trade union is to be effective, an employer who is capable of concluding the collective agreement as the other party and further prepares a written agreement and sign and seal it by both parties shall meet the method prescribed in Article 31(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and a collective agreement which fails to meet such requirements shall not have the normative effect on the union members

In light of the records, when the defendant was designated as a company subject to the deferment of payment due to the principal bank around July 15, 1997 and was virtually omitted, the defendant company and the non-party union seeking a self-help plan to kill the defendant company, the non-party union's company and the non-party union was notified in writing to the defendant company of the fact on the 23th day of the same month after the non-party union decided to open a representative competition to return bonuses, leave allowances, monthly allowances, etc. The defendant company's representative director and the non-party union chairperson were selected as the 29th day of the same month as the company subject to deferment of payment and the non-party union's share of the company's 120 billion won as the result of withholding the company's bonus return, wage reduction, and the non-party union's 29th day of the same month, and the defendant company and the non-party union's non-party union's non-party union's non-party union's 97th day of the above resolution that the defendant's labor union and the company's 3.

Meanwhile, the written consent on the self-help plan prepared on the 31st day of the same month (No. 1, No. 60 pages), stating that the consent on the self-help plan should be invalidated in cases where a third party takes over the defendant company or the highest management progress of the defendant company at the time of change. However, the above document does not include the name and seal of the chairperson of the non-party union and the name and seal of the representative director of the defendant company. However, there is no material showing that the defendant company confirmed the provision on the invalidation of the above document even in other documents. Rather, the above document can be known to the effect that the non-party union submitted it through the defendant company to express his/her intent to consent to the self-help plan of the defendant company. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the above

Furthermore, in cases where a decision to commence corporate reorganization is made, the authority to manage and dispose of the company's business and the assets pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the Company Reorganization Act is exclusive to the administrator who is not the representative director of the reorganization company, and the administrator is in the position of the employer in labor relations. Therefore, the right to enter into a collective agreement with the defendant company is not the representative director but the right to enter into the collective agreement. Thus, the above agreement on June 17, 1998 (No. 2 and No. 61 of the record) entered into between the non-party's union and the defendant's representative director during the company reorganization procedure with respect to the defendant company does not constitute a collective agreement, and there is no evidence to deem that the approval of

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the above invalid provision is included in the contents of a collective agreement and directly affects the plaintiff on June 17, 1998 is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements and validity of a collective agreement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is without merit.

Therefore, by accepting the defendant's appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)