2

3

4

5

1. Where the objective meaning of the language and text contained in a disposition document prepared by a juristic act is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized in accordance with the said language and text, and on the other hand, a collective agreement is concluded between a trade union and an employer through collective bargaining to enhance workers’ economic and social status. Thus, the provision of an express text cannot be interpreted as disadvantageously to workers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da86287, Feb. 13, 2014).

However, in a case where the objective meaning of the language and text of a collective agreement is not clearly revealed and there is an opinion regarding the interpretation of the language and text, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account the relevant language and text, the motive and circumstances for which the collective agreement was concluded, the purpose and genuine intent of the trade union and its employer to achieve through the collective agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da37574, Jun. 1, 2007; 2011Da109531, Feb. 27, 2014).

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. The collective agreement in 2008 entered into between the Defendant and the labor union prescribed the personnel affairs of individual members under Articles 21 through 35 in Part 4, especially the grounds for disciplinary action, type of disciplinary action, disciplinary procedure, dismissal, and dismissal. Article 36 of the same Act provides that the company shall take measures to nullify disciplinary action and reinstate when the disciplinary action or dismissal of union members is confirmed to be unfair and the final judgment of the administrative agency or the court is confirmed to be null and void (Paragraph 1). Paragraph 2 of the same Article provides that the unpaid amount of wages shall be paid in addition to 100% of ordinary wages at the time of attendance at work (hereinafter referred to as “the provision on additional compensation”). Article 39 of Part 5 of the same Act provides that “Restrictions on dismissal due to managerial reasons” shall also be maintained in the collective agreement concluded later.

B. The provision on the instant additional compensation was originally established at the time of entering into a collective agreement in 1988. However, the said collective agreement only provided that “the reduction of business or the inevitable reason for business” in Part “Personnel Management” was stipulated as “the adjustment of personnel,” and did not separately provide for the provision on dismissal due to managerial reasons.

However, as the Labor Standards Act newly enacted by Act No. 5309 on March 13, 1997 introduced the concept of dismissal for managerial reasons and regulates the dismissal of workers separately for individual reasons, it newly established a part of "employment guarantee" instead of deleting the provision of "personnel adjustment" in the existing collective agreement since the collective agreement in 2002, and newly established a separate provision of "restriction on dismissal for managerial reasons".

In 208, the collective agreement, including the collective agreement in 2008, provides for personnel management for individual members, in particular regarding grounds for disciplinary action, types of disciplinary action, disciplinary procedure, restrictions on dismissal or dismissal, etc., and the provision on restrictions on dismissal for managerial reasons is placed in the "employment guarantee", so the provision on additional compensation in this case is placed in the "personnel management."

C. Meanwhile, at the time of entering into a collective agreement in 2002 and 2006, a trade union has the meaning of the provision on additional compensation in this case to the Ministry of Labor, the Labor Relations Commission, and the court.

Upon receipt of the determination of unfair dismissal, etc. by the judgment of the court, the company shall take the following measures: for the wages that have not been worked due to the disciplinary action, the company shall compensate for the additional amount by adding not only the wages that have been naturally received at the time of attendance but also the average wage by adding 200%, and the expenses incurred in the action, etc. must be paid immediately.

3. In full view of the contents of the provision on the instant additional compensation, the structure of the collective agreement, the history of the dismissal system based on managerial reasons, the amendment process of the collective agreement pursuant thereto, the attitude of the trade union related to the provision on the instant additional compensation and the genuine intent of the parties to the collective agreement inferred therefrom, which can be known from these factual basis, it is reasonable to interpret the provision on the instant additional compensation, which was introduced under the premise that the provision on the instant additional compensation is applied to cases where the illegality of the “individual disciplinary action or dismissal” is discovered, and that the provision on the instant additional compensation is not to be applied to cases of “retirement due to managerial reasons.” Furthermore, it is difficult to view the scope of the application of the provision on the instant additional compensation as above, thereby falling under cases where the provision on the collective agreement is modified disadvantageously to workers.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the provision of the instant additional compensation applies to dismissal for managerial reasons. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the disposition document, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding each additional compensation and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young