[퇴직금][공1992.2.1.(913),472]
Whether the previous rules of employment shall apply to a worker who entered after the revision, where the revised rules of employment becomes null and void without consent of the workers (affirmative)
If an amendment to the former rules of employment to the retirement allowance system under the short-term payment system becomes null and void without the consent of the workers, the previous rules of employment shall continue to be valid. If the previous rules of employment are valid, the previous rules of employment cannot be applied on the ground that the previous rules of employment should be applied to those who were employed before or after the amendment, as well as those who were employed after the amendment.
Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff 1 and two others, Plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and two others
Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and five others
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na40899, 90Na40905 decided January 15, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: with respect to the land sources retired until December 31, 1971, the defendant company paid retirement allowances according to the so-called short-term payment system that pays the amount calculated by multiplying the average wage for 30 days at the time of retirement by the number of years in continuous service each year; and thereafter, the court below adopted the so-called short-term payment system that pays the average wage for 30 days for the number of years in continuous service as retirement allowances from January 1, 1972; and the plaintiffs adopted the so-called short-term payment system that pays the average wage for 30 days for the number of years in continuous service after the amendment of the above rules of employment; and furthermore, since there is no evidence to find that the above revised rules of employment to the short-term payment system that changed the former short-term payment system to the retirement allowances to the labor union or workers composed of employees of the defendant company after the amendment of the above rules of employment, the previous rules of employment should be applied.
As discussed in the appeal is recognized as the place of appeal, if the amendment to the rules of employment of the defendant company to the retirement benefits under the previous progressive payment system is null and void due to the failure of workers' consent, the previous rules of employment shall continue to be valid, and if the previous rules of employment are valid, it cannot be applied to not only those who were employed before and after the revision, but also those who were employed after the revision, with the application of the previous rules of employment. It is a party member's opinion that the invalid rules of employment cannot be applied (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu754 delivered on April 27, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3143 delivered on July 10, 190; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3143 delivered on July 10, 199). Therefore, the above decision of the court below in accordance with the opinion of the party member is justified and there is no error of law as to the application of
Therefore, the appeal is 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.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)