B. Dismissal under the collective agreement or rules of employment and "justifiable reasons" under Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act

C. Whether the rules of employment, which provides the grounds for disciplinary action against absence from office for at least three days, is invalid as it violates the Labor Standards Act (negative)

B. Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act limits an employer to prevent an employee from freely dismissing, by providing that the employer shall not take disciplinary action, such as dismissal, against the employee without justifiable grounds. Here, justifiable grounds refer to cases where there is an inevitable managerial necessity, regardless of whether there is a reason to the extent that the employee is not able to continue to maintain an employment contract under the generally accepted social norms. Thus, in cases where the rules of employment, etc. provide for dismissal under the collective agreement and rules of employment, such dismissal is a dismissal with justifiable grounds unless it is null and void as it violates the above Act

C. There is no ground to deem that the rules of employment that stipulate the grounds for disciplinary action against a worker from absence without permission for at least three days violates the Labor Standards Act and thus null and void. Considering the fact that the worker is absent from work without permission for at least three days from January 12, 198 to January 198, the worker is absent from work without permission for at least ten days on three occasions from June 1987, and considering the fact that the worker is absent from work without permission for at least three days from June 12, 1987, it seems that there is a justifiable reason for the employer to dismiss the worker on the ground that

However, the above determination by the court below cannot be deemed contradictory to the reasons. In other words, even if the plaintiff filed a verbal report of absence on the part of a person or telephone and obtained its approval, if the plaintiff did not submit a report of absence attached to the reason for absence at the time of the late work and obtain its approval, the plaintiff's absence cannot be treated without permission in light of the facts acknowledged in the former part of the court below. However, the court below held that the plaintiff's absence for the above three-day consecutive three-day continuous absence without any further explanation does not constitute absence from work without permission, which is the reason for the disciplinary dismissal, and thus, there is an error of law in the determination of inconsistency before and after the reason.

Meanwhile, Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall not take disciplinary action, such as dismissal, against a worker without any justifiable reason, thereby restricting the employer from freely dismissing a worker. Here, justifiable grounds refer to cases where management needs arise, regardless of the circumstances attributable to an employee to the extent that it is impossible to continue the employment contract under the generally accepted social norms. Thus, if a collective agreement provides for dismissal of a worker under the rules of employment, etc., and the rules of employment violate the above Labor Standards Act and thus it is not null and void, the dismissal is deemed a dismissal with a justifiable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1875, Apr. 14, 1987; 89Meu5475, Sept. 26, 1989).

As seen earlier, since the Plaintiff was absent without permission for three consecutive days, it constitutes grounds for disciplinary dismissal prescribed by the rules of employment of the Defendant company, and there is no ground to deem the above rules of employment invalid as it violates the Labor Standards Act. Besides, the Plaintiff was absent without permission for six days from July 20 to July 25 of the same year for three days from June 18, 1987 to June 20 from June 20 of the same year, and each day from January 5, 1988 is recognized by the evidence of the first instance court. In addition, considering this, the Plaintiff’s remaining absence for three consecutive days is recognized by the evidence of the first instance court and there is a justifiable reason for the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the illegality of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, falls under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the argument is reasonable.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)