(b) A case that held that a disposition ipso facto without undergoing the prior agreement procedure under paragraph (1) is valid;

(c) Whether disciplinary action, etc. should be taken during the ipso facto retirement, even though the rules of employment, etc. have no provision in any procedure regarding ipso facto retirement;

D. Legal nature of ipso facto retirement and the necessity of legitimate cause under Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

(e) Where it is recognized that there exists a justifiable reason under paragraph (d).

B. The case holding that, in the case where a company's personnel management regulations do not provide for the exclusion or restriction of a certain reason for retirement without going through a separate procedure such as disciplinary action, etc., and the collective agreement does not provide for the exclusion or restriction of such automatic retirement, an employer shall automatically retire if he/she falls under a reason for his/her retirement, unlike the cases where he/she can choose any of the various types of disciplinary actions, such as disciplinary action, or where he/she provides for that he/she may take a certain personnel disposition, and thus, he/she shall not be subject to any other personnel disposition other than retirement even if he/she exchanges his/her opinion on labor union and personnel in good faith in the agreement procedures, and thus, the validity of such disposition does not affect the validity of the voluntary retirement.

C. In a case where the rules of employment, etc. do not provide any procedures different from that of other disciplinary dismissals, the same ground for ipso facto retirement should not be subject to the procedures prescribed by disciplinary action, etc. in ipso facto retirement, unlike the case where the same ground for ipso facto retirement is provided.

D. Although a ipso facto disposition is to terminate a labor relationship by the unilateral intent of an employer regardless of the employee’s will, in its nature, it should be dismissed, so that the retirement disposition is valid, there must be justifiable grounds as stipulated in Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act.

(e) It is recognized that there exists a justifiable reason under paragraph (d) of this Article.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In a case where the collective agreement provides that the personnel management of union members, etc. shall be decided by agreement between the union and the union, the personnel management without going through such agreement procedures shall be null and void in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da22100, May 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da45735, Jul. 13, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 94Da24596, Jan. 24, 1995, etc.). The fundamental purpose of the personnel management agreement provision is to restrict the exercise of the employer’s right to personnel management by faithfully exchanging their opinions and allowing the union members to exercise the right to personnel management of union executives by exercising the right to personnel management, but it is not possible for the employer to take the first time and the labor union’s decision-making procedure, even if the agreement was made in good faith, if there is no possibility that the employer would not have any influence on the validity of the personnel management agreement.

According to the records of this case, Article 8 (1) 4 of the Personnel Management Regulations of Defendant Corporation provides that the grounds for disqualification shall be one of the grounds for disqualification where a person was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment, and two years have not passed since the expiration of the period of suspension of the execution thereof, and Article 22 (1) provides that where grounds for disqualification for appointment are generated or discovered to an employee, he/she shall retire ex officio. Articles 23 and 31 provide that ex officio dismissal and disciplinary action shall be subject to the consent of the disciplinary committee. Article 21 (1) of the collective agreement provides that a hospital shall not discriminate against a member on the grounds of his/her legitimate activities of a union. Paragraph (2) of Article 21 of the collective agreement provides that the personnel management of union executives and representatives shall be decided by prior

According to the above personnel regulations, a ipso facto retirement disposition shall be treated as a ipso facto retirement if it falls under a certain reason without going through separate procedures such as disciplinary action, etc., and the collective agreement does not have any provision that excludes or limits such ipso facto retirement. Thus, an employer may choose any one of the various types of disciplinary actions, such as disciplinary action, or a certain personnel disposition may be conducted, unlike the cases where it is stipulated in the personnel regulations, etc., if it falls under a reason for ipso facto retirement, ipso facto retirement disposition shall be conducted. Thus, even if an opinion on the labor union and personnel is faithfully exchanged in the agreement procedure, it is not a case where any other personnel disposition other than retirement can be conducted, and thus, it does not affect the validity of the ipso facto retirement disposition.

The judgment of the court below is just in holding that it shall not be deemed null and void even if it did not go through the above agreement procedures with the trade union, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to collective agreements and rules of employment affecting the conclusion of the judgment, the contradiction of reasons, and the lack of reasons. The grounds for appeal pointing this out

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a case where the rules of employment do not provide any procedure different from that of other disciplinary dismissals against the reason for ipso facto retirement, unlike the case where the same reason for ipso facto retirement is stipulated as the same reason for ipso facto retirement, it cannot be said that ipso facto retirement should go through the procedure prescribed by disciplinary action, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu12452 delivered on May 25, 193; Supreme Court Decision 94Da42082 delivered on March 24, 1995, etc.).

In the case of the instant ipso facto disposition, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that it cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the above personnel regulations do not have any procedural provisions, and thus did not provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to defend himself/herself, or did not undergo deliberation by the personnel committee.

3. On the third ground for appeal

ipso facto retirement disposition is to terminate labor relations by the unilateral intent of the employer regardless of the worker's will, but in its nature, it is to be dismissed, so that the retirement disposition is valid, there must be justifiable reasons under Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da54210 delivered on October 26, 193; Supreme Court Decision 94Da42082 delivered on March 24, 1995, etc.).

The instant ipso facto retirement disposition is a case where two years have not elapsed since the date when the reason was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and the probation period was completed, which constitutes grounds for disqualification as stipulated in the above personnel regulations. The medical business conducted by the medical institution affiliated to the Hanyang University operated by the Defendant Corporation constitutes public works aimed at improving national health and the Plaintiff, a member of the hospital, also is a medical person who contributes to promoting the improvement of national health and securing the healthy living of the people. Article 8(1)5 of the Medical Service Act provides that a person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment and whose execution is not confirmed, is one of the grounds for disqualification of medical personnel, and the contents of the crime for which the Plaintiff was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, refused to investigate the status of the operation of the labor union of the administrative agency, and participated as a third party in the industrial action at another workplace. In light of the above, the instant disposition has justifiable grounds for disqualification, and such judgment of the court below cannot be accepted. The relevant grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)