(b) Where a company amends the previous retirement allowance rules that stipulate only the rate of payment for the continuous service period for up to 15 years without the consent of the employee group to determine the rate of payment for the continuous service period for up to 30 years, and where the rate of payment for the previous continuous service period for up to 15 years is reduced and the previous rate of payment for the continuous service period for up to 15 years is less than the previous rate of payment for up to 15 years, the validity of the revised retirement

(c) The case holding that it is difficult to recognize that an amendment to the rules of retirement has a rationality in terms of social norms as long as it would not obtain the consent of the employee group;

(d) Whether it is possible to present the same conditions with the consent of a majority of workers who have obtained the consent of the workers members of the labor-management council in disadvantageous changes of working conditions;

E. Whether the employee consented to or ratified the amendment of the retirement allowance rules if there is no clear objection against the employee's receipt of the retirement allowance in accordance with the revised rules

(f) If a person files a lawsuit more than ten years after the amendment of the rules on retirement allowances, and asserts the invalidity of the amendment, whether such amendment may violate the good faith principle

B. In a case where a company amends the former retirement allowance rules that stipulate only the rate of payment for the period of continuous service for 15 years without the consent of the employee group to set the rate of payment for the period of continuous service for 30 years, and there is a new provision that lowers the rate of payment for the period of continuous service for 15 years and less than the previous rate of payment for the period of continuous service for 15 years, the part regarding the period of continuous service for 15 years in the revised retirement allowance rules is significantly lower than the previous retirement allowance rules for the period of 15 years. Thus, even if the scope of basic wages is wide, the change requires the consent of the employee group subject to the previous provisions before the revision, barring any special circumstance, since the amendment of the retirement allowance rules has been made without such consent, the part of the revised retirement allowance rules that exceeds the standard of the Labor Standards Act for the period of continuous service for more than 15 years cannot be seen as having been amended for more than 15 years since the previous provisions cannot be seen as having been amended for more than 15 years.

C. The case holding that the above circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the payment rate of retirement allowances for the service period prior to the change has been adjusted by the previous provisions, at the same time, at the same time, 10% increase in the amount of wages and the annual salary, which are not included in the average wage which is the basis for the calculation of the retirement allowances, and at the same time, at the same time the previous revision procedure, newly includes the bonus and the annual salary which are not included in the average wage which is the basis for the calculation of the retirement allowances, even though the revision procedure has obtained the consent of the worker members of the labor-management council, it cannot be said that it is sufficient to compensate for the infringement of the worker's rights, solely on the ground that the revision of the retirement allowance plan for the calculation of the average wage for the calculation of the bonus and the annual salary, which is considerably higher than the other government-invested institutions, was in force differently for each government-invested institution.

D. A labor-management council is a system aimed at promoting industrial peace by promoting common interests of both workers and employers through understanding and cooperation, and its purport differs from that of a trade union and its system. Thus, even if the company stipulates matters regarding working conditions as agreed matters, it cannot be deemed that the employees comprehensively delegate their authority to give consent on behalf of the workers in the election of the workers members organized by the labor-management council to change their working conditions at a disadvantage. If there is no material suggesting that the workers' members exercise their right to consent on behalf of the workers by gathering and gathering the opinions of the workers for each department representing them in advance when they give consent to the amendment of the rules on retirement allowances, unless there is any material suggesting that the workers' members exercise their right to consent on behalf of the workers by gathering and gathering the opinions of the workers for each

E. Even if there is no clear objection that his/her employees received retirement allowances in accordance with the revised retirement allowance rules, it is difficult to deem that the employees consented to the amendment of the retirement allowance rules or ratified ex post facto.

F. The fact that workers filed a lawsuit ten years after the amendment of the rules on retirement allowances and asserted the invalidity of the amendment cannot be said to violate the principle of good faith.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 7

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below revised the former rules for the continuous service period of the defendant company by 30 years, which stipulate only the rate of payment for the continuous service period of 15 years and reduced the rate of payment for the previous continuous service period of 1.6 months by 15 years, average wages for about 1.6 months for the previous continuous service period of 15 years, and new rules for the revision of the above rules for the retirement allowance of the defendant company to the effect that the previous rules for the continuous service period of 15 years apply to the previous rules for the retirement allowance of 1.9 months, even if the previous rules for the continuous service period of 15 years were applied to the previous rules for the previous revision, the revision of the above rules for the retirement allowance of the defendant company to the effect that the rate of payment for the previous continuous service period of 15 years is not applied to the previous rules for the retirement allowance of 15 years and that the previous rules for the retirement allowance should be applied to the newly revised rules for the retirement allowance of 15 years from the previous rules for the retirement allowance period of 15 years.

However, the right to claim a retirement allowance at a level exceeding the minimum standard of the Labor Standards Act shall be recognized only when the contents of the retirement allowance system are stipulated in the labor contract, collective agreement, employment rules, etc. In the case of the defendant company in this case, if the pre-amended retirement allowance regulations only provide for the period of 15 years prior to the beginning of the original period, the retirement allowance regulations for the continuous service period exceeding 15 years shall not be deemed to apply the progressive rate of 15 years prior to the initial period, but shall be deemed not to have been enacted later.

Therefore, the part concerning the continuous service period of 15 years among the revised retirement allowance rules is significantly low compared to the previous retirement allowance rules, and even if the scope of basic retirement allowance has been widened, the change requires the consent of the employee group that was subject to the previous provisions. Thus, the revision of the retirement allowance rules in this case was made without such consent, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da1893 delivered on May 14, 1993). However, the part concerning the continuous service period of 15 years in the revised retirement allowance rules cannot be deemed to be a disadvantageous change because they meet the standard of the Labor Standards Act and there is no more favorable provision, and even if they did not obtain the consent or hear, such part cannot be deemed to be null and void for this reason, and it shall be deemed to be valid as the enactment of the new rules for the continuous service period of 15 years in accordance with the revised retirement allowance rules, and the amount exceeding the previous retirement allowance rules for 15 years in advance shall be paid for each of the retirement allowance rules (see the revised retirement allowance rules for 15 years in advance.

The judgment of the court below that calculated retirement allowance to be paid to the plaintiffs by the above different method is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the retirement allowance system, which affected the judgment.

There is reason to point this out.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit, the amendment of the retirement allowance provision of this case, as pointed out in this case, is to unify the retirement allowance progressively implemented differently for each government-invested institution by improving the retirement allowance system of the defendant company with a significantly high rate of payment compared to other government-invested institutions, and to achieve the rationalization of management of the defendant company's company taking a large weight in the national economy, the retirement allowance payment rate for the period of service before the amendment is adjusted downward toward the future, making the payment rate of the retirement allowance under the previous provisions, and simultaneously increase 10% of the wages. At the same time, the former includes the bonus and annual salary which are not included in the average wage which is the basis for the calculation of the retirement allowance, and even if the consent of the members of the labor-management council was obtained, the wage increase can not be deemed as sufficient to compensate for the infringement of workers' rights. Thus, the above circumstance alone does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence due to a misapprehension of legal principles or a misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for appeal.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the retirement allowance rules are amended as of January 1, 1981; (b) the above revised retirement allowance rules are amended as of February 28 of the same year after the establishment of the labor-management council; (c) the sixth labor-management council was introduced as an agenda for the amendment of the rules on retirement allowances; (d) the consent of the workers members was obtained on January 18, 1982 in order to clarify the consent of the workers members; and (e) the provisions of the labor-management council of the defendant company provide that the matters concerning working conditions such as wages and working hours which are not agreed upon by the labor-management council under the Labor-management council Act may be decided by consultation and decision; and (e) the above revised rules are different from those of the labor-management council for the purpose of promoting industrial peace through mutual understanding and cooperation; and (e) the above revision of the rules on retirement allowances cannot be seen as having been made in violation of the rules on workers' rights to the above revised rules on behalf of workers.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even though there was no objection by the employees of the defendant company upon receipt of retirement allowance under the revised retirement allowance rules, it is difficult for the employees to have consented to the amendment of the above retirement allowance rules or ratified it ex post facto. The judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the employees' implied consent in changing disadvantage in the rules of employment, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

5. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although Article 47 of the collective agreement concluded on March 30, 1989 by the defendant company's trade union provides that "if a member has been employed for not less than one year and retires, a retirement allowance shall be paid as prescribed by the relevant regulations of the company", the court below held that if the defendant company's major minutes related to collective bargaining have agreed that "in relation to Article 47 of the collective agreement, it shall be re-negotiation at the time of the next negotiation, but if there is a special policy change in the government within that period, it shall not be deemed that the defendant company's trade union has ratified the amendment of the above retirement allowance provision in Article 47 of the collective agreement, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts against the rules of evidence as argued in the lawsuit.

6. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

In this case, the court below held that the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of good faith only with the fact that the plaintiffs asserted the invalidity of the amendment when ten years have passed since the amendment of the above retirement allowance provision was made. The above decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the good faith as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to see this.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)