(b) Validity of personnel dispositions in violation of the personnel agreement provisions in the collective agreement;

(c) the claim for wages during the period in which it was impossible to provide labor without any cause attributable to the employer even if the dismissal was not void or dismissed.

(d) the case holding that if an employee was detained during the period of dismissal, he cannot claim wages during the period of detention even if the dismissal is null and void;

B. Where the specific content of the personnel agreement clause stipulated in the collective agreement, etc. provides that an employer shall give an opportunity to present his/her opinion so that he/she may be carefully in dealing with the personnel disposition, the validity of the personnel agreement shall not be affected even if the employer did not go through the procedure. However, where the employer requires the prior consent or consent of the trade union in dealing with the personnel disposition, or where the employer provides that the employee disposition should be taken by considering the agreement with the trade union upon consultation with the labor union on the personnel disposition, the personnel agreement without going through the procedure shall be deemed null and void in principle. However, even in this case, if there are special circumstances such as where the employer voluntarily renounced the procedure

C. In a case where dismissal of an employer’s employee is null and void, the employee was unable to provide his/her labor due to the cause attributable to the employer even though the labor contract relationship remains valid, and thus, it is possible to claim wages in return for the employer to receive when he/she provided his/her labor during that period pursuant to Article 538(1) of the Civil Act. However, even if dismissal was not made, if the employer was actually impossible to provide his/her labor due to a cause attributable to the employer, or if the employer discontinues his/her business due to a

(d)the case holding that, even if dismissal is invalidated for a considerable period of time after the worker was sentenced to imprisonment during the period of dismissal, the worker is unable to provide labor during the period of detention, and thus, it cannot claim wages during the period of detention;

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, if the plaintiff was detained on April 12, 1989 as the chairperson of the defendant company's trade union (hereinafter referred to as the "labor union")'s right to receive disciplinary action against the plaintiff's employer, and the defendant's right to receive disciplinary action against the plaintiff's employer was violated by the Assembly and Demonstration Act. On June 21, 1989, Incheon District Court sentenced one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, and one year of imprisonment again was sentenced on August 29 of the same year. The defendant company decided to open a disciplinary committee and take disciplinary action against the plaintiff's employer as the ground for disciplinary action under the rules of employment and collective agreement, and the defendant company's right to receive disciplinary action against the plaintiff's union's employer's refusal to reach an agreement on September 11, 190 should still be notified to the plaintiff company's employer's right to receive disciplinary action against the plaintiff's employer. The defendant company's right to request for disciplinary action against the plaintiff's union's employer to attend.

2. In principle, even if the right of personnel is within the employer's authority, an employer may limit its authority according to his own will. Thus, if an employer recognizes the involvement of the union in the personnel affairs of union members pursuant to a collective agreement concluded with the labor union, the validity of such agreement shall be determined in accordance with the purport of the provisions of the agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da18542, Sept. 25, 1992). Thus, the judgment below to the same purport is just and the submission of disciplinary action to the same purport shall not be deemed null and void because Article 55(5) of the collective agreement of the defendant company, which provides that the decision is made

3. Where a trade union provides that an employer shall give an opportunity to present its opinion in order to ensure decentness in dealing with personnel affairs, the validity of personnel affairs disposition shall not be affected. However, where an employer requires prior consent or consent of a trade union in dealing with personnel affairs or discusses on personnel affairs with a trade union to take personnel affairs, and provides that an employer shall take personnel affairs in compliance with his/her opinion, in principle, without taking such procedures shall be deemed null and void. However, even in this case, if there are special circumstances, such as where an employee or the trade union voluntarily waives such prior procedures, the disciplinary action shall be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da32074 delivered on December 8, 1992; 92Da45735 delivered on July 13, 1993; 92Da50263 delivered on July 13, 1993; see Supreme Court Decision 200Da2364 delivered on August 24, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 200Da163699, supra.

4. The argument that the defect in the disciplinary procedure of this case was cured by the implied ratification on the trade union side is without any evidence, and the defendant did not assert that the defect in the disciplinary procedure of this case was cured by the court below. There is no reason to discuss it.

5. Where dismissal of an employer is null and void, the employee was unable to provide labor due to a cause attributable to the employer despite the validity of the labor contract relationship. Thus, the employee is entitled to claim wages in return for which he can receive when he provides labor during that period under Article 538(1) of the Civil Act. (See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2132 delivered on May 23, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Da2527 delivered on June 28, 191; Supreme Court Decision 92Da39860 delivered on December 8, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 90Da8763 delivered on March 31, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 90Da8763 delivered on March 31, 1992). Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim wages during that period since the Plaintiff did not have been detained for a considerable period of time after the Plaintiff’s order to provide labor due to a cause attributable to the employer.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the payment of wages during the period of dismissal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, there is a reason to discuss this point.

6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the plaintiff's wage claim is reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed judgment are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)