2. B

A. Payment of 62,754, 590 won to Plaintiff A and 20% interest per annum from February 15, 2014 to October 10, 2014, and 10% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

B. The Plaintiff B shall pay 83,230,120 won and 5% interest per annum from March 15, 2014 to October 10, 2014; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 5% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

83, 230, 120 Won per annum from February 28, 2014 to the service date of each complaint, and 5% per annum from February 28, 2014;

The payment shall be made at 20% per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

A. The Defendant is a special corporation established for the purpose of educating students from the academic circles of Busan National University; Plaintiff A from January 23, 1984 to January 31, 2014; Plaintiff B from June 1, 1994 to February 2, 2014

28. It is up to 28. Workers who are employed and worked in each defendant hospital.

B. On December 1, 2002, the Defendant set the payment criteria (hereinafter referred to as the “payment criteria of this case”) to pay the special compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “special compensation of this case”) under Article 44(1) of the Rules on Remuneration to all the voluntary retirees in order to revitalize the voluntary retirement of employees who have been in continuous continuous service for at least 20 years on the ground that the applicant for voluntary retirement was poor than other national university-affiliated institutions and to resolve the cause of dissatisfactions arising from the promotional body of employees, and accordingly, the Defendant set up the payment criteria for the voluntary retirement from January 1, 2003 to the voluntary guardian in accordance with the instant payment criteria: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17095, Jan. 1, 2003>

The special compensation of this case based on Article 44 of the Remuneration Regulations has been paid.

* The enforcement date: A person whose remaining retirement age is not less than one year but less than two years after January 1, 2003: 10% of retirement allowance: 10% of retirement allowance; 20% of retirement allowance plus 20% of retirement allowance (the remaining retirement age is less than 3 years but less than 4 years: A person whose remaining retirement age is not less than 4 years but less than 5 years: 40% of retirement allowance; a person whose remaining retirement age is not less than 30% but less than 5 years: (d) a person whose remaining retirement age is not less than 5 years; (e) a person whose remaining retirement age is not less than 5 years; and (e) the Defendant received an application for voluntary retirement from the Plaintiffs on January 1, 2014; and (e) a person who retired from the Plaintiff as of February 28, 2014, respectively (hereinafter referred to as “the instant notice of voluntary retirement”).

D. On February 19, 2014, after the notice of the voluntary retirement of this case, the Defendant held a personnel committee and decided to pay the special compensation of this case to the honorary guardian any more, and issued a decision to retroactively implement the decision (hereinafter “decision on the site price of the special compensation of this case”) from January 1, 2014, and publicly announced the said decision to the former employee on February 28, 2014, and accordingly, the Defendant did not pay the special compensation of this case to the Plaintiffs.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 2-4 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant has paid the instant special compensation in accordance with the instant payment criteria based on Article 44 of the Remuneration Regulations from January 1, 2003, and therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the instant special compensation to the Plaintiffs, who are the honorary retirees.

2) On February 19, 2014, after the Defendant issued the notice of voluntary retirement to the Plaintiffs, the determination of the site pay of the instant special compensation is invalid as the Defendant’s alteration of Article 44 of the Rules of Employment, which is a rules of employment, to an employee without the consent of a trade union organized by a majority of workers or by a majority of workers.

3) Moreover, applying the date of enforcement retroactively to the date when the Defendant abolished the payment system of the special compensation in this case on February 19, 2014, as of January 1, 2014, to the extent that the Defendant’s employees employed by the Defendant, who trust in the payment of the special compensation in the long-term and continuous manner, lost the trust of the Plaintiffs who retired before the abolition of the special compensation payment system, is the Defendant’s unilateral decision that held the special compensation payment system in trust, and thus, has no effect contrary to the principle of trust and good faith (hereinafter “Good faith”).

B. Defendant 1) In determining the subject of application of Article 44 of the Regulations on Remuneration, which is a provision on discretion, the determination of a site price of the instant special compensation is merely a confirmed determination that the relevant honorary guardian would make a payment by specifically determining whether he/she falls under “a person who has rendered distinguished services” in accordance with the language and text of the above provision on special compensation instead of paying special compensation in a uniform and formally “a person who has rendered distinguished services,” and does not constitute an unfavorable modification or abolition of the rules of employment. However, the Plaintiffs constitute “a person who has rendered distinguished services as a special compensation under Article 44 of the Regulations on Remuneration.”

Since it is not subject to special compensation, it is not subject to special compensation.

2) The Defendant decided to pay a site for the instant special compensation in extenuating circumstances where it is inevitable to normalize management by being pointed out by the government as a public institution’s management example with regard to excessive disbursement of welfare cost, etc., and actively cooperate with the government’s policy. Thus, the failure to pay the instant special compensation to the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have exercised the authority unfairly to the extent that it is impossible to be acceptable in light of the concept of justice against the Plaintiffs’ trust, and in particular, since Plaintiff B was in office until February 28, 2014, it does not constitute retroactively applying the determination to pay the site for the instant special compensation. Therefore, the determination to pay the site for the instant special

3. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

In the absence of special circumstances, such as the case where the rules of employment provide for the purport that a worker eligible for the voluntary retirement should take place only with the application of the worker who has the eligibility for the voluntary retirement, etc., the employment relationship is terminated by an agreement by examining the requirements of the employer and approving the application. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the right to examine and decide on whether to accept the application for the voluntary retirement of the worker is reserved to the employer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da42933, Dec. 21, 199, etc.). Meanwhile, even if the eligibility for the voluntary retirement is determined even if the eligibility for the voluntary retirement is determined, the employee is naturally retired and the employer is liable to pay the voluntary retirement when the expected date comes due to the occurrence of the validity of the voluntary retirement after the scheduled date of the voluntary retirement (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da60890, 60906, Aug. 23, 2002).

On or after January 1, 2002, the Defendant decided to pay the special compensation for voluntary retirement in accordance with the instant payment criteria pursuant to Article 44 of the Remuneration Regulations, and the fact that the Plaintiffs filed an application for voluntary retirement on or after January 24, 2014 and received the instant notice from the Defendant on or after January 24, 2014 is as seen earlier. In addition, taking full account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Gap evidence No. 4 through 7 and 10, the Defendant decided to pay the special compensation for the instant case uniformly to the voluntary retirementr without examining the merits in fact. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17088, Dec. 1, 2003>

1. The special compensation of this case was paid to 37 honorary retirees who incurred from January 1, 201 to January 1, 2014 without exception. The special compensation of this case is calculated by applying the rate set forth in the instant payment criteria to retirement pay (retirement benefit + retirement allowance + interim settlement payment). The retirement benefit of Plaintiff A is calculated by applying the rate set in the instant payment criteria; the retirement benefit of Plaintiff A is KRW 5,45,850; KRW 4,791,260 for retirement allowances; KRW 44,791,260 for interim payments; KRW 25,262,00 for interim payments; the retirement benefit of Plaintiff B is KRW 78,042,250 for retirement benefits; KRW 61,653,370 for retirement allowances; KRW 26,764,620 for retirement allowances; and Article 25 of the Defendant’s collective agreement provides for the remaining period of Plaintiff’s retirement age of at least 14 years for the remainder of the retirement age of this case.

According to the aforementioned facts and legal principles, the Defendant’s application for voluntary retirement was accepted and examined by the Plaintiffs on January 24, 2014 to determine the Plaintiffs as eligible for each voluntary retirement. The Plaintiff’s special compensation of this case as of the time of the voluntary retirement is KRW 62,754,590 (=5,455,850 + retirement allowance + KRW 44,791,260 + interim settlement allowances + KRW 25,262,00 + KRW 25,260 + KRW 50% of the standard for payment of this case’s special compensation of this case’s Plaintiff B is KRW 83,230,120 + (amounting to KRW 78,042,250 + KRW 61,653, 370 + KRW 266,466,270, and delay damages). Therefore, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiffs each of the above interim settlement payment criteria.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) We examine whether the determination of a site price for the instant special compensation is merely a mere confirmation of Article 44 of the Regulations on Remuneration, or whether the rules of employment are disadvantageously modified.

Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that the employer shall hear the opinion of the labor union with respect to the preparation or amendment of the rules of employment, if there is a labor union organized by the majority of workers at the business or workplace concerned, or the opinion of the majority of workers if there is no such labor union, but a labor union organized by the majority of workers: Provided, That the consent of the employer should be obtained if the rules of employment are modified disadvantageous to workers. In this context, the rules of employment refer to the employer’s provision of the rules of employment applicable to all workers at the business (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da30181 delivered on May 10, 1994, see Supreme Court Decision 97Da24511 delivered on November 28, 197, etc.).

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the oral argument, the defendant, separate from the collective agreement, may establish personnel regulations and remuneration regulations in order to regulate matters concerning the service relationship and wages of the employees belonging to the defendant, and recognize the fact that voluntary retirement for the employees belonging to the defendant is made pursuant to Article 57 of the above personnel regulations. Article 44 of the remuneration regulations provides that retirement consolation benefits may be paid to the retired workers who meet the specific conditions, but the defendant is in accordance with the discretionary provision that the retirement consolation benefits may be paid to the

12. In order to revitalize the voluntary retirement through a meeting and deliberation within the boundaries, and to resolve the complaints of employees due to promotion body, the standard of payment of this case is established to the effect that the voluntary retirees uniformly meet the requirements of Article 44(1)2 of the Regulations on Remuneration, and that all the voluntary retirees shall be paid special compensation in accordance with the remaining period up to the retirement age, based on the remaining period up to the retirement age. The fact that the Defendant, in fact after January 1, 2003, paid the retirement consolation benefits in this case uniformly to the voluntary retirees without examining their merits.

According to the above facts, Article 44 of the Remuneration Regulations constitutes the rules of employment prepared by the defendant to directly regulate the matters concerning wages of the employees belonging to the defendant. From January 1, 2003, where the defendant continuously retires by the employees belonging to the defendant without any exception or provision on the termination date of enforcement, Article 44 of the Remuneration Rules has been applied in accordance with the above payment standards in this case. If the above provision has been actually implemented and applied as above, even if the wording itself was not clearly changed, it is reasonable to view that the payment of special compensation is made to all the voluntary retirees as prescribed in the payment standards in this case even if the wording itself was not clearly changed, the payment of special compensation should be made to all the voluntary retirees. Ultimately, the decision on the payment of the site for the special compensation of this case, which did not pay to all the voluntary retirees, should be deemed to have changed Article 44 of the Remuneration Rules, which is the rules of employment, to a disadvantage to workers.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion against this is without merit, and the plaintiff's assertion is with merit. 2) Prior to determining whether the consent of a majority of workers is necessary to determine the price of the site for the special compensation of this case, it is applied retroactively from January 1, 2014, and it is examined whether the plaintiffs are excluded from the payment of the special compensation of this case as the special compensation of this case, and it is against

On January 2014, the plaintiffs filed an application for voluntary retirement with the defendant on January 24 of the same month from the defendant.

The fact that the defendant received the notice of the voluntary retirement of this case. The defendant, while notifying the plaintiffs of the voluntary retirement of this case, set the date of plaintiff A's retirement as January 31, 2014, and February 28 of the same year as the date of plaintiff B's retirement, respectively, and the defendant on February 19, 2014, which was about 25 days after the notice of the voluntary retirement of this case.

The facts that the Special Compensation Act was determined to be implemented retroactively from January 1, 2014 are as seen earlier. In other words, ① the Special Compensation Act was paid without exception to all the honorary retirees from January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2014 pursuant to the instant payment standards; ② the purpose of the Defendant’s payment of the Special Compensation Act is to encourage the voluntary retirement of its employees by preparing the instant payment standards, and accordingly, Article 3 of the Defendant’s collective agreement is to maintain the existing working conditions, and even if it is determined to be implemented retroactively from January 1, 201 to January 1, 2014, the Plaintiffs were to unilaterally determine the value of the retirement benefits at the time of the Plaintiff’s voluntary retirement and to be paid to the employees at the time of the instant decision to the extent that it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to unilaterally determine the retirement benefits at the time of the instant decision to be paid to the employees at least 5th of the date of the Plaintiffs’ voluntary retirement.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion against this is without merit, and the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, under Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, the Defendant has a significant dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant's duty to pay 62, 754, 590 won for the Plaintiff A, and 14 days after the date when the cause for the payment occurred. From February 15, 2014 to October 10, 2014, 5% per annum under the Civil Act until October 10, 2014; 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment; 83, 230, 120 won for the Plaintiff Special Compensation; and damages for delay from the next day to the date of full payment under Article 9 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits; 14 days after the date when the cause for payment occurred to the Plaintiff; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 10% per annum from March 15, 2014.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gyeong-tae

Judges Jeong-won

(1) Where any of the following persons retires, he/she may pay a special compensation, as prescribed by the personnel committee:

1. A person retired from office due to occupational disease or death;

2. A person who has rendered distinguished services during his/her service;

(2) No special compensation referred to in paragraph (1) shall exceed 50/100 of his/her retirement benefit.

2) Article 13(2) of the Constitution also violates the spirit of the prohibition of deprivation of property rights by retroactive legislation.