In spite of the fact, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the fact that there is a reason to pay for the employee who was an exception to dismissal notice.

In light of the legislative purport of the pre-determination system, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and excessively broad interpretation, although the reason for the exception is strictly interpreted.

2. Determination

A. The legal nature of the grounds for exception to the pre-determination system of dismissal 1) the pre-determination system of dismissal and the relevant laws and regulations on the grounds for exception are as follows:

[Labor Standards Act] Article 26 (Advance Notice of Dismissal) When an employer intends to dismiss a worker (including dismissal due to managerial reasons), he/she shall give the worker an advance notice at least 30 days, and if he/she fails to give an advance notice at least 30 days, he/she shall pay the worker ordinary wages for at least 30 days.

Provided, That this shall not apply where it is impossible to continue the business due to natural disasters, accidents, or other unavoidable circumstances, or where the worker intentionally interferes with the business or causes property damage and falls under the grounds prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor.

[Enforcement Rule of the Labor Standards Act] Article 4 (Reasons for the Loss of Workers Eligible for Exception to Notice of Dismissal) "The Reasons prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor" in the proviso to Article 26 of the Act is as specified in the attached Table.

[Attachment] Reasons for the worker's failure to give notice of dismissal (the relation to Article 4)

1. Where he/she has received money, goods or entertainments from a supplier, and brings about a loss in the production of inferior goods;

2. Where he/she causes a traffic accident by arbitrarily allowing another person to drive a business vehicle on behalf of another person;

3. competition with trade secrets or other information.