[퇴직금][공1996.6.15.(12),1681]
[1] In a case where a worker retires on an interim basis of his/her free will and then retires after receiving a retirement allowance, whether the employment contract is terminated (affirmative)
[2] The case holding that where a company grants a previous position and salary class to an employee who re-entered after the interim retirement and gave an official commendation for long-term service, claiming the date of commencing the retirement allowance as the time of re-admission does not go against the principle of no speech
[1] When the company's retirement allowance rate system under a labor-management agreement was changed from a short-term system to a simple system, and it is impossible to expect the increase of retirement allowances due to a short-term increase in retirement rates, it is reasonable to deem that the labor contract relationship between the worker and the company was terminated by the interim retirement, and it cannot be deemed that the worker's expression of intention of retirement is invalid as a false agreement or a false declaration of intention.
[2] The case holding that in a case where the company recognized the previous work experience of workers and granted the previous position and salary class at the time of their new job entry after the middle retirement, and the company merely commended the long-term continuous work period by adding the actual work period, it cannot be deemed that the company's assertion that the labor contract relationship with the worker was severed by the interim retirement, and the initial date of the retirement allowance after the re-admission cannot be deemed as a violation of the principle of the
[1] Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 107(1) and 108(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da2295 delivered on May 2, 1992 (Gong1992, 1977) Supreme Court Decision 92Da17754 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2874) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 86Da1124 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198, 882) Supreme Court Decision 90Da20398 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1747) (Gong191, 192, 473) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da12035 delivered on December 10, 191 (Gong1992, 473) / [30Da139319 delivered on April 13, 195)
Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Attorney Shin Shin-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Dongyang LLC Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 94Na8183, 8190 delivered on December 9, 1994
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period are examined together.
On the first ground for appeal
The court below held that with respect to the first interim retirement of the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 1 and 8 at the time of original adjudication, "the plaintiff did not assert or prove any assertion or proof as to the specific circumstances that can be deemed as coercion, or a false conspiracy or false declaration of intention, etc. on the part of the plaintiff". This is only a decision that there is no proof as to the fact that the above declaration of intention to resign was forced, or that there was no proof as to the fact that there was a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of intention, or that there was no proof as to the fact that the above declaration of intention to resign was made, or that there was a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of intention (main fact). In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.
On the second ground for appeal
In light of the records, Defendant Company: (a) determined that the existing retirement allowance system would become dangerous if it continues to maintain its financial position on August 20, 1975; (b) concluded on August 20, 197 with the total number of employees including 369 labor unions; (c) extended the retirement age from 53 to 55 per annum; (d) monthly salary from 400 to 20% per annum; and (e) revised the employment conditions from 21 March 21 of the following year to 30%; and (e) revised the rate of annual retirement allowance from 197.0 to 17.00 per annum; (e) calculated on August 20, 197 by adding the amount calculated on the basis of the previous average wage rate of 1/7 months to the amount calculated on August 20, 197; and (e) the amount calculated on the basis of the average wage rate of 1/60 per annum to the employees at that time.
Therefore, although there are some different parts in the judgment of the court below, it is just that the labor contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant company has been terminated by the above interim retirement, and there is no error of law as pointed out in the judgment below.
On the third ground for appeal
The theory of the lawsuit points out that the labor contract relationship is terminated as a whole by retirement, and that even if the labor contract relationship is terminated as a basis for the calculation of retirement allowances by distinguishing the labor contract relationship from other labor contract relationship which is the basis for the calculation of retirement allowances, it is not possible to continue the other labor contract relationship.
However, the court below determined that the employment contract relationship was terminated by the interim retirement in this case where the plaintiffs retired from the defendant company by interim retirement and continued to serve after the plaintiffs received retirement benefits, and they did not err in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to retirement benefits, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
On the fourth ground
According to the records, although the labor contract relations with the plaintiffs were terminated by interim retirement, the defendant company recognized the previous career experience of the plaintiffs and granted the previous position and salary class at the time of the new retirement, and it can be seen that the defendant company presented a long-term continuous commendation by adding the actual work period. In this case, if there are circumstances, the defendant company's labor contract relations with the plaintiffs in this case with the employment contract relations with the plaintiffs in this case was cut off by interim retirement, and the initial date in which the retirement benefits after the retirement was returned cannot be deemed to be contrary to the principle of non-competence. Thus, there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of the judgment
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)