2. The supplementary intervenor’s participation in the total cost of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal is borne by the supplementary intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the defendant.

On November 18, 2014, the Central Labor Relations Commission revoked the final decision made by the Central Labor Relations Commission on an application for retrial between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”) with respect to an application for retrial, such as unfair dismissal, etc.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as follows: “Korea Credit Assessment” in Article 8(2) of the judgment of the court of first instance; “The Korea Credit Assessment” in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; “The Korea Credit Assessment” in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act was deleted; “The Korea Credit Assessment” in Article 8 subparag. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance was implemented since 2014 after the decision to cut off the same; and “ November 27, 2013” in Article 11 of the 6th 6th 11st 6th 6th 20, respectively; and the same is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the allegations by the intervenors as follows. Thus

(i) argument as to whether there was an urgent administrative necessity

A) Since the Plaintiff’s consolidated financial statements include both the Plaintiff’s consolidated companies as well as the Plaintiff’s consolidated companies, it is unreasonable to refer them to them, and the Plaintiff’s management status should be examined based on the Plaintiff’s individual

B) The Plaintiff carried out dividends for the fiscal year 201 in 2012, and distributed approximately KRW 6 billion during the fiscal year 2014, which was the year in which the instant layoff occurred. This goes against the urgent managerial necessity of the instant layoff.

C) Since the Press Holiday system results in supporting affiliate companies by purchasing and paying an additional amount of KRW 1.1 million for affiliate merchandise coupons at the Plaintiff’s expense, it rather shows that there was an increase in expenses, and this shows that the Plaintiff did not have an urgent managerial crisis.

D) Regular leave is granted a five-day leave in addition to annual leave, and no compensation shall be made in cash unless it is used in the pertinent year. However, the Plaintiff’s revision of the Rules of Employment on June 24, 2014, immediately after the instant layoff, abolished the regular leave system as of July 1, 2014, and implemented the regular leave payment system retroactively, and paid KRW 3.1 billion for three-year compensation, which shows that the Plaintiff’s management crisis was not serious.

E) The subject of the instant human resources restructuring cannot be limited to full-time employees.

F) The Plaintiff acquired its own shares from December 2, 2012 to March 2013, which was called a managerial crisis, at least 14.5 billion won. According to this, the Plaintiff’s financial status was very sound.

G) The Plaintiff’s long-term occurrence of large-scale large-scale deficit was reflected in the result of excessive allocation of common expenses, such as reimbursement of executives, management losses, subsidiary loss, etc. to the LI business division. Therefore, trust cannot be made. Considering that the Plaintiff’s rapid increase in expenditures to IT companies and advertising companies between 2011 and 2013 was made through its affiliated company, it can be presumed that the Plaintiff’s sudden increase in expenditures to the IT companies and advertising companies was made through the relevant affiliated company.

2) Claim as to whether dismissal efforts have been made;

A) On January 22, 2013, at the hearing of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission”) filed against the Plaintiff’s agent Nonparty 1 (○○○ Standing Director) to confirm whether to dismiss the Plaintiff’s agent in the future. Nonparty 1 promised that “the Plaintiff would not dismiss the Plaintiff’s agent,” and the instant layoff violates the above commitment.

B) According to the Plaintiff’s data on the current status of employees among the business reports published by the Plaintiff in the Financial Supervisory Service, the total number of full-time employees as of September 30, 2013 is 1,455 and the total number of full-time employees as of December 31, 2013 is 1,114. As such, the number of employees reduced during the same period is 341 (1,455 - 1,114). The number of employees reduced during the same period exceeds 27 persons who applied for a desired retirement, and 350 persons who applied for a desired retirement after the notice of the criteria for the selection of those subject to a final layoff, if the number exceeds 14 employees, the final reduction target, and thus, the Plaintiff was able to avoid dismissal of the Intervenor.

C) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not suggest or give the Intervenor an opportunity to transfer to an affiliate, and did not take measures such as reduction of working hours, temporary retirement, and implementation of circular leave, the Plaintiff did not make efforts to avoid dismissal.

D) The Plaintiff did not make efforts to avoid dismissal in light of the following: (a) newly employ regular employees, contractual employees, and executive officers before and after the instant layoff; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff paid performance-based incentives corresponding to most part of the departments only to the management performance pay; and (c) the Plaintiff did not sufficiently endeavor to reduce expenses, such as maintaining the budget of educational expenses as it is, and increasing the amount of expenses per employee as a result, regardless of large reduction in the amount of expenses.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to whether there was an urgent administrative necessity

A) Determination on the assertion on financial statements

Inasmuch as it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s consolidated financial statements are an objective indicator indicating the management status of the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff’s individual financial statements, it cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that they referred to the Plaintiff’s consolidated financial statements while evaluating the management status of the Plaintiff. In addition, in light of the following circumstances that can be known by the Plaintiff’s individual financial statements, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was faced with the management crisis at the time of restructuring of the instant human resources.

(1) When evaluating the Plaintiff’s financial status based on individual financial statements, even though the Plaintiff sent black in 201, the accumulated amount of the Plaintiff’s financial statements during the period between 2012 and 2013 exceeds KRW 100 billion.

(2) In 2013, the ratio of operating income based on the Plaintiff’s individual financial statements was higher than 139% based on the consolidated financial statements in 140.5%, and the ratio of operating income based on the individual financial statements was lower than -8.3% based on the consolidated financial statements.

(3) When based on the Plaintiff’s individual financial statements in 2012 and 2013, the Plaintiff’s operating profit ratio is considerably high compared to other securities companies, and the Plaintiff’s equity capital profit ratio was very low.

B) Determination on the assertion on dividends

The Plaintiff’s payment of dividends for fiscal year 201 in 2012 appears to have been made due to the Plaintiff’s payment in 2011 on the financial statements as seen earlier. However, according to various circumstances presented by the first instance court concerning the Plaintiff’s operating profit ratio, equity capital profit ratio, and urgent managerial necessity as the requirements for the layoff in this case as seen earlier as of 2012 and 2013, it is difficult to deem that the foregoing circumstances as to dividends for fiscal year 201 have an impact on the urgent managerial necessity as the requirements for the layoff in this case. Moreover, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s distribution of approximately KRW 6 billion as of the fiscal year in 2014 was made based on the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders after about one year from the instant layoff in 2014, and it is also difficult to view that the circumstance that the Plaintiff distributed dividends as the Plaintiff’s management situation had been improved after the instant layoff in this case goes against the urgent managerial necessity for the layoff in this case.

C) Determination as to the assertion on the pressal leave system

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 80, the press period system is 18.4 days average for the number of days of annual leave of the plaintiff's employees, and the annual leave compensation of 95,000 to 300,000 won per day average for 191,00 won per day under the circumstances that the plaintiff designated the number of days of annual leave of 95,000 won per class and used a long-term leave of 5 days or more per day. The plaintiff paid gift certificates of 1,00,000 won per day to the employees to encourage the use of the annual leave of 2013, while the press period system was implemented to reduce the number of days of annual leave of 91,00 won per day by implementing the press period system. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the situation of the plaintiff's management crisis, which was introduced to reduce the annual leave of 1,000 won.

D) Determination as to the assertion on compensation for regular leave

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 94-1, 2, and 95 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it does not seem to be contrary to the urgent management necessity of the layoff in this case to abolish the regular leave system after the layoff in this case and to pay compensation equivalent to the number of days of three-year regular leave.

(1) The abolition of a regular leave system is not an implementation system at the time of the instant layoff, which is the point of time to determine whether there was an urgent managerial crisis as a system that was enforced in July 2014 after the instant layoff.

(2) As alleged by the Intervenor, where a regular leave is discontinued even if there is no compensation for the non-use of the regular leave, the Plaintiff’s employees would use the annual leave and thereby, the Plaintiff would be able to reduce the payment of compensation for non-use of the annual leave. Therefore, the abolition of the regular leave system has the effect of reducing the compensation for non-use of the annual leave by minimizing the non-use of the annual leave.

(3) After the instant layoff, the Plaintiff agreed to pay a lump sum amount of compensation equivalent to three-year regular leave days to employees in return for the abolition of the regular leave system in the course of consultation with the labor-management council and labor union. The Plaintiff also obtained the employees’ consent to amend the rules of employment.

(4) Under the foregoing circumstances, the amount of compensation equivalent to the number of days of a three-year regular leave system appears to have been incurred in obtaining the consent of the employees in relation to the abolition of the regular leave system.

E) Determination on the assertion on the subject of the instant human resources restructuring

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence No. 24, Gap evidence No. 25-2, Gap evidence No. 26-1 and 2, Gap evidence No. 26-2, and the purport of the whole arguments, i.e., the eligibility for the second desired retirement, which was implemented as part of efforts to avoid dismissal before layoff of this case, was limited to regular employees, ② the criteria for the selection of those subject to layoffs can only be applied to regular employees, ③ the labor-management council, and ③ the contract position is deemed not to have been considered when negotiating human resources restructuring at the labor-management council, it is reasonable to view that the subject of the human resources restructuring of

F) Determination on other allegations

It cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of treasury stocks around the early 2013 due to the Plaintiff’s financial soundness. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Plaintiff continued to decline in the Plaintiff’s share value due to the Plaintiff’s management deterioration which continued around 2012, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was only a minimum preparation to prevent the Plaintiff’s management deterioration and the decline in additional stock value.” The other Intervenor’s assertion appears to have no evidence to acknowledge it, or is merely an unreasonable trend.

2) Determination on whether dismissal efforts have been made;

A) Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion of violation of the Plaintiff’s promise

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the chairperson of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission at the time of the examination of the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 22, 2013, asked “I amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba amba am.”

B) Determination on the assertion that the number of persons subject to reduction exceeds the number of persons

(1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 66 and 122, among the business reports published by the Plaintiff in the Financial Supervisory Service, the total number of the Plaintiff’s employees as of September 30, 2013 is 1,455, and the total number of the full-time employees as of December 31, 2013 is 1,114.

(2) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 100, 101, and Eul evidence No. 70 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have exceeded 350 persons who were reduced due to the human resources restructuring of the instant case.

(A) According to the current status of human resources publicly announced by the Plaintiff in the Financial Investment Association, the number of regular employees as of September 30, 2013 is 1,416; the number of regular employees as of December 31, 2013 is 1,114; the number of regular employees as of December 31, 2013 is equal to the business report publicly announced by the Financial Supervisory Service, but the number of regular employees as of December 31, 2013 is more than 39 business reports publicly announced by the Financial Supervisory Service.

(B) As above, the cause of the difference between 39 and 39 is that the Plaintiff reported 3 management directors, 4 outside directors, 31 non-registered executives, and 1 auditor as regular employees by mistake as of September 30, 2013. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the number of regular employees in office of the Plaintiff Company as of September 30, 2013 is 1,416.

(C) On December 23, 2013, 302 of the Plaintiff’s full-time employees retired from office (the foregoing 302 number is exactly equal to the number calculated by subtracting 1,114 number of full-time employees as of September 30, 2013 from 1,416 number of regular employees as of December 31, 2013). The Plaintiff included 14 number of employees transferred to an affiliate as of December 31, 203 as of December 31, 201 and notified 34 employees, who should be additionally dismissed, to be dismissed, on January 3, 2014, and 25 of the above 34 employees wished to retire additionally on January 9, 2014 (i.e., the remaining 9 employees + 25 of the Intervenor’s retirement from office, including the instant 20 employees, as of February 9, 2014).

(D) According to the Plaintiff’s data on the loss of employment insurance, 474 retired from employment insurance due to the first transfer of a group of affiliated companies from July 31, 2013 to April 1, 2014, which was the first transfer of a group of affiliated companies from July 31, 2013 and the last transfer of a group of affiliated companies from July 31, 2013. However, 474 persons include 82 contractual workers, 11 personal reasons for the loss of employment insurance (i.e., 13 personal reasons for the loss of employment insurance), 14 and 26 disciplinary dismissal (i.e., 15 personal reasons), and 43 persons, 349 (i.e., 474 - 82 - 43 personal reasons), and 350 personnel who were retired from employment insurance due to human resources restructuring, if any, including 350 regular employees who were foreigners, who were not insured.

(3) Accordingly, the Defendant and the Intervenor asserts that the retired person due to contract-based employees and personal circumstances should also be included in the number of personnel subject to restructuring.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the object of human resources restructuring is limited to full-time employees excluding the Plaintiff’s contractual employees, and the object of human resources restructuring under an agreement between labor and management, such as voluntary retirement, transfer of affiliates, etc., which are artificially conducted due to business needs, and thus, the above assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff’s desired retirement was limited to regular employees as part of efforts to avoid dismissal prior to the instant human resources restructuring, and the person who retired due to personal circumstances did not include the person who retired from office in the desired retirement.

② According to the contents of the proposal for the selection of those subject to layoff proposed by the Plaintiff, it is premised that those subject to layoff are regular employees.

③ Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, who was the employee members of the labor-management council, prepared a written confirmation that they were regular workers subject to the restructuring of human resources of this case.

④ Although participating in the vote to revise the program for low-performance management and the system for flexibleizing benefits, it seems that there was a possibility that the effect of the modification of the system could also affect the contractual position, it also sought consent to the modification of the system (or disadvantageous modification of the employment rules).

C) Determination on the assertion such as transfer placement, reduction of working hours, etc.

(1) In light of the fact that there is a limit to the adjustment of human resources through the transfer placement to an affiliate, and there is a transfer placement for the number of persons capable of partial transfer placement, etc., it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff affected the judgment that “an attempt to reduce human resources through the transfer placement, etc. of affiliates to employees constitutes the efforts to avoid dismissal of the Plaintiff,” as the first instance court explained, that the Plaintiff did not suggest the transfer placement to an affiliate or give such an opportunity to the intervenors.

(2) The Plaintiff did not take measures, such as reduction of working hours, temporary retirement, and circular leave prior to the instant layoff. However, in light of the fact that the relationship between individual employees and customers did not take measures, such as reduction of working hours, temporary retirement, and circular leave, in light of the characteristics of the securities business in which the relationship between the individual employees and customers is important, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not make efforts to avoid dismissal on the ground that it did not take measures,

D) Determination of the budget assertion for new employment, promotion personnel, payment of incentives, and educational expenses

(1) The assertion of new employment

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff neglected to endeavor to avoid dismissal due to neglecting his/her duty of cost reduction, such as hiring more than an inevitable scope, and making efforts to avoid dismissal, based on the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the Evidence Nos. 70, 82, 83, and 106.

(A) From July 2013, the Plaintiff established the instant plan for the restructuring of human resources and discussed the plan for layoff, to February 2, 2014 at the time of the instant layoff, 6 full-time employees, 52 contractual workers, and 4 executive officers were newly employed, and 46 full-time employees, 8 contractual workers, and 3 executive officers were newly employed from the date immediately after the layoff to August 2014.

(B) On July 2013, five of the six regular employees newly employed from around February 2013 to February 2014, 2014, which was the time of the instant layoff, was the place of work, or in light of the content of the work, etc., the Intervenor was not a field of work that can replace the Intervenor, and the remaining one is the attorney-at-law, the Intervenor was not a field of work that can be replaced by the Intervenor.

(C) Also, we examine 46 regular new employees employed from the date of the instant layoff to August 2014.

① On November 2012, 27 of the above 46, 2012, 27 of the above 46 was confirmed to have been enrolled in the second half of 2013 as a letter of high school or higher class (the letter of high school or higher class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class

② In addition, on August 2014, two regular employees employed around 2014 were attorneys-at-law who will work in the legal field, so the Intervenor, who was the subject of the instant layoff, was not a business area that could substitute for the Intervenor.

③ The rest of 17 IT personnel is considered to have been paid by the Plaintiff to the Korea Development Bank andC in the operation of IT as external agents, but with the exception of the important portion of IT expertise in order to enhance cost efficiency, it is necessary to directly employ the K&C personnel. In addition, it is considered to have been done according to the need to secure the proportion of IT personnel to hold IT personnel in accordance with Article 8 of the Electronic Financial Supervision Regulations amended at the end of 2013.

(D) Of 52 contractual workers employed before the instant layoff, 44 out of the 52 contractual workers were dismissed on a short-term basis for the person acquiring the instant human resources immediately after the instant human resources restructuring. The remaining eight and eight contractual workers employed after the instant layoff were professionals who are not able to replace themselves as general employees, such as branch professionals, business professionals, and IT planning professionals, and were temporarily needed.

(E) Furthermore, around December 31, 2013, the number of executives of the Plaintiff Company was 49, and around March 31, 2014, which was 5 new officers, the number of executives of the Plaintiff Company was 31 and around December 31, 2014, which was 29 additional employment from August 2014, the number of executives of the Plaintiff Company was 29, and the number of executives of the Plaintiff Company was 29, and the number of executives of the Plaintiff Company was 29, and the reduction of the Plaintiff’s remuneration before and after the instant layoff was decided to reduce the number of executives before and after the instant layoff, and the duties of the executives cannot be replaced by the general employees. Accordingly, even if an officer was newly appointed, it is deemed inevitable to fill the business blank of the retired officer, and it cannot be deemed that it goes against the efforts to avoid dismissal.

(2) The assertion of promotion personnel

(A) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 58-1 to No. 58-5.

① The Plaintiff, in 2010, 224 persons in 201, 201 persons in 201, 196 persons in 2012, and 280 persons in 2013) were regularly promoted. On February 27, 2014, immediately after the instant layoff, around February 27, 2014, 107 persons were regularly promoted.

② The number of persons promoted to Class A was 2010, 14 persons for the year 201, 12 persons for the year 2012, and 10 persons for the year 2013, and 20 persons for the year 2014 (22 persons for the management planning office). The number of persons promoted to Grade A was 21 for the year 2010, 29 for the year 201, 31 for the year 201, 30 for the year 201, 50 for the year 2013 (24 for Grade A and Grade B for the year 24 for the promotion to Grade A), and 15 for the year 2014 (16 persons for the management planning office if included).

③ The promotion rate of the Plaintiff Company compared to the number of persons to be promoted was 25.6% in 2010, 21.8% in 2011, 19.3% in 2012, 20.2% in 2013, and 10.8% in 2014.

(B) In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, namely, ① even though the number of promotioned class A in the year 2014 exceeds the number of promotioned class A in the year 2014, the number of promotioned class 1 was much smaller than that of the years, ② promotional personnel could not have been engaged in regular promotion because the instant layoff was made repeatedly each year, and ③ promotion rate in the year 2014 was higher than half of each year, and it appears that the promotion rate in the year 2014 seems to have been within the minimum scope of promotion personnel in consideration of the fact that it was a promotion personnel who was employed after the layoff, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff failed to make full efforts to avoid dismissal with the fact that he was a promotion personnel in the year 2014.

(3) Performance rate assertion

(A) In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 52-3 through 5, Eul evidence No. 65, and part of non-party 4's testimony of the court of first instance, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① As the piece rate in 2011, KRW 1,024,977,113 was paid as the piece rate, and 319 of the 456 persons eligible for the payment received piece rate ( approximately 70% of the receipt rate).

② As the piece rate for the year 2012, KRW 1,200,608,759 was paid, 541 of the 662 persons eligible for payment was received (no less than 82% of the recipient ratio), and the standards for payment were based on separate standards. At least Grade 2, the employees of Grade 2 and higher class 3 paid the results of the evaluation of the achievements, and the employees of Grade 3 and lower class 2 are paid 2% equally.

③ On January 28, 2014, KRW 1,717,226,064 was paid as the piece rate for the year 2013, and 516 of the eligible recipient was 521, and 516 of the eligible recipient was 521, and 8.5% to the responsible person was 8.2%, and 5% to the employees was 5% equal.

(B) According to the above facts, against the fact that the performance rate in 2012 was paid to approximately KRW 1.2 billion to about 541, 201, it was paid as the performance rate for the year 2013 in which the instant layoff was in progress, and it was paid to 516 members with an amount equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion as the performance rate for the year 2013, which was in progress, and the higher amount was paid as the performance rate. The performance rate for the year 2012 is higher in light of the example year, and the performance rate for the year 2012 is more than 2% in the case of employees of Grade III or lower, while the payment rate for the performance rate for the year 2013 is more than twice as 5%.

(C) However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff paid excessive performance rates without making full efforts to avoid dismissal.

In other words, (1) Business performance pay is not determined voluntarily by the Plaintiff, but is paid once a year at the group level according to the management evaluation of the affiliates of the Korea Exchange Group, and its object is the Plaintiff’s “employee supporting the main and branch offices.”

(2) In cases of a non-support position, the bonus shall be regularly paid every month based on the performance, while the employees of the support division shall be paid the bonus in accordance with the management evaluation of the Hanhwa Group, and in cases of a support position, the above bonus shall have the character of the bonus

③ Although there is no legal obligation to pay the Plaintiff the instant piece-based bonus, if the Plaintiff does not reduce or pay the above piece-based bonus that is provided only to the position of support, in light of the fact that the position of business is regularly paid piece-based bonus, it is likely to be treated disadvantageously by the position of support and thus be against equity

④ If the Plaintiff did not pay the performance bonus, it would result in the reduction of wages exceeding 10% of the fixed wage agreed upon by the employer and the company while deciding to dismiss the instant case.

⑤ Prior to the instant layoff, the Plaintiff abolished the annual reward system for outstanding employees, and decided to reduce the welfare system for employees, such as the suspension of kindergarten admission fees and subsidies for parents’ medical expenses, the reduction of welfare points, and to reduce the fixed amount by 10%.

(6) In such circumstances, it is determined that there was no payment of piece rates under the above circumstances, and acceptable that the payment of piece rates was made to employees by changing the payment conditions more favorable than the preceding year in order to prevent employee's morale, escape from excellent employees, etc., and to realize the atmosphere of the company in which the company was deprived, and the amount is not excessive.

(4) The assertion of educational expenses

(A) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 53, 54, Eul evidence Nos. 65 and the testimony of non-party 4 of the first instance trial.

① By the year 2013, the Plaintiff provided employees training through a common education program (English, job remuneration, promotional education, etc.) conducted by the Korean Human Resources Management Institute, which is an educational institution separately operated by the Korean Human Resources Group.

② In 2014, the Plaintiff abolished part of the compulsory common education already conducted by the Korean Human Resources Education Center, and the employees received educational assistance at their own discretion, but 25% of the educational expenses was required to be directly borne by the employees, and limited the place of use to education, academic degree, purchase of books, and acquisition of qualification certificates.

③ As educational expenses, the Plaintiff spent approximately KRW 2.12 billion in the year 2013 and approximately KRW 2.29 billion in the year 2014. Of the educational expenses spent in the year 2014, approximately KRW 1.67 billion was disbursed as common education for group training, etc., and approximately KRW 610 million was disbursed as a voluntary personal capacity training.

(B) Although the Plaintiff had a 1/4 degree of total employees due to the instant human resources restructuring, the amount of education expenses paid per employee would have increased as a result of the Plaintiff’s disbursement of educational expenses on a scale almost similar to that of the towing year.

(C) However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, namely, ① the cause of an increase in educational expenses compared to the number of people is attributable to the voluntary transition of part of the compulsory common education to the educational program, ② the company’s competitiveness enhancement in order to overcome the business crisis is essential and necessary, education must be conducted prior to the strengthening of the employees’ work capacity in order to overcome the business crisis, ③ the increase in the total educational expenses is not so big compared to the year 2013, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff failed to endeavor to avoid dismissal solely on the ground that the educational expenses were maintained.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as it is reasonable. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as this conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Chang-hun (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 8 (Human Resources, Organization, and Budget) of the Electronic Financial Supervision Regulations. 2. Financial companies or electronic financial business entities shall endeavor to comply with the following requirements with respect to human resources and budget. 1. Not less than 5/100 of the total number of employees and staff for the information technology sector, and not less than 5/100 of human resources for the information technology sector.

Note 2) The increase of 280 persons to be promoted in 2013 seems to have been due to the increase in the number of employees on board while the merger took place around September 2012.

3) The judgment of remanding the case is found to be erroneous in the judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by comprehensively examining the new additional evidence and the evidence before remanding the case, which were presented during the trial proceedings, as a whole, and thereby making efforts to avoid dismissal, such as cost reduction and cost reduction. As such, the instant layoff was concluded to be a justifiable dismissal satisfying all the requirements for layoff under the Labor Standards Act, thereby concluding that the instant layoff was a justifiable dismissal, and thereby making efforts to avoid dismissal. Therefore, the judgment below was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to “a serious managerial necessity” and “an endeavor to avoid dismissal” among the requirements for layoff, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.