(a) Whether the disciplinary action against workers is personnel affairs;

B. The validity of the rules of employment, which provides for exceptions to the exclusion of a union and its members prior to review by the personnel committee, although the collective agreement provides that the union and its members shall hear opinions.

(c) Effects of dismissal dispositions for which procedures for disciplinary action prescribed in the collective agreement are omitted;

(d) The case holding that a claim for nullification of dismissal filed after the elapse of one year and seven months thereafter cannot be permitted as it violates the good faith or the good faith, unless there are special circumstances, in a case where the retirement allowance was received without reservation, and the application for remedy against unfair dismissal was dismissed, but the appeal was not final and conclusive because it did not raise any objection;

A. In light of the fact that the disciplinary action against workers is not only clear that it is personnel matters, but also the overall provisions concerning the personnel affairs including the disciplinary action under the title of the company's collective agreement is personnel affairs, and that "the employees of the union shall respect the company with the rights and responsibilities to conduct personnel affairs, such as recruitment, appointment, movement, promotion, promotion, raise in salary, reinstatement, dismissal, atmosphere and standing," the personnel affairs under the above collective agreement are also included in the disciplinary action.

B. Even though the rules of employment provide that "the president may request a review to the personnel committee if he/she deems that the request for review by an employee is well-grounded," the company shall be deemed null and void in violation of the provisions of the above rules of employment, unless the collective agreement provides that the company shall hear the opinion of the union and the pertinent union members prior to the review and provides exceptions thereto.

C. If a collective agreement raises an objection to a decision on the personnel management (Disciplinary Action) of a company, the trade union and the pertinent union members may raise an objection within 10 days from the date of receipt of the objection, and the company shall review the objection within seven days from the date of receipt of the objection, and the company shall hear the opinion of the union and the pertinent union members before the review. If the dismissed worker submits the objection within the period of submission, the company shall open the review procedure in accordance with the collective agreement and determine the propriety of the dismissal disposition in accordance with the collective agreement, and if the dismissal disposition completely omitted the review as a remedy or final determination procedure, such procedural defect is considerably contrary to the function of the retrial procedure, the expectation of the person subject to disciplinary action, and the strictness of the procedure, and thus, the above dismissal disposition is null and void due to a serious procedural defect.

(d) The case holding that a claim for nullification of dismissal filed after the elapse of one year and seven months from the date of dismissal cannot be permitted as it goes against the principle of good faith or the principle of no advice, unless there are special circumstances, in a case where, after the dismissal of the worker, the worker received a retirement allowance paid by the company without reservation, and the above dismissal was rejected by the Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the dismissal was unfair, but the above dismissal became final and conclusive due to the absence of objection to the dismissal.

(b)Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 36(1) of the Trade Union Act; Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 2 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da22100 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1959) (Gong1992, 2959). Supreme Court Decision 92Da13400 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 2963). Supreme Court Decision 92Da4935 delivered on October 222, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3151). Supreme Court Decision 91Da38686 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong193, 845). 93Da21736 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2925).

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee and others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Na858 delivered on June 3, 1994

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Not only is it clear that the disciplinary action against workers is personnel matters (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da22100 delivered on May 22, 1992; Decision 92Da13400 delivered on September 22, 1992; Decision 92Da13400 delivered on September 2, 192); the collective agreement of the defendant company provides for the overall personnel matters including the disciplinary action under Chapter II (the clerical error in Chapter III) under Articles 17 through 36. In particular, Article 17(1) provides that "the employees of the association shall respect the rights and responsibilities of the company, such as appointment, appointment, movement, promotion, promotion, promotion, reinstatement, dismissal, atmosphere, standing, etc. of the employees of the association." In light of this, the personnel affairs under Article 22(1) of the collective agreement shall also be included in the disciplinary action. There is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

Article 68(2) of the Rules of Employment of Defendant Company provides that the president may request a re-examination to the personnel committee, even if Article 22(2) of the said Rules provides that the company shall hear the opinion of the union and the pertinent union members before re-examination and does not provide an exception to it. Thus, Article 68(2) of the above Rules of Employment that provides an exception to the exclusion thereof shall be deemed null and void in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da4935 delivered on October 22, 1993).

In addition, the argument that the defendant company trade union approved the provision of Article 68 of the Rules of Employment is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no argument that the defendant argued about it at the original trial. There is no reason for both the arguments.

On the third ground for appeal

If a person subject to disciplinary action raises an objection to a disciplinary action and filed a request for a new trial, the procedure for a new trial should be determined as to the whole of the disciplinary action. Even if there is a defect in the previous procedure for a violation of the procedure for a new trial, the defect in violation of the procedure for a new trial shall be cured (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1769 delivered on June 9, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 91Da36123 delivered on September 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da36123 delivered on September 22, 1992). Article 22 of the above collective agreement provides that a trade union and its members may raise an objection within 10 days from the date of receipt of the objection, and the company shall review within 7 days from the date of the new trial, and the company shall hear the opinion of the union members prior to the new trial, and thus, if the plaintiff submits an objection within the period of submission of the objection, it shall also be deemed that the dismissal procedure has a defect in the procedure for new trial.

Concerning No. 4

If an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any objection or condition while receiving retirement allowances, the validity of the dismissal shall be recognized unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of the dismissal after a long period of time has passed shall not be permitted in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of no-competence (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da38686, Jan. 26, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 93Da21736, Sept. 24, 1993). As discussed in the arguments, if the Plaintiff did not withhold any objection against the retirement allowance paid by the Defendant on the 31st of the same month after the dismissal on December 24, 1990 and the above dismissal was unfair, the Plaintiff’s claim for remedy against the dismissal was filed on Apr. 26, 1991, and thus, the claim for nullification of the dismissal against the principle of no-competition or the principle of no-competiation for two months after the dismissal becomes final and conclusive.

However, according to the legal brief of the defendant on August 18, 1993, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of this case with the Jeonnam-do Regional Labor Relations Commission as the 91rd Sea No. 16, which was dismissed, there is no reason to file the lawsuit of this case. It is obvious in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on December 2, 1992 after the elapse of one year and seven months from the time when the application of this case was dismissed. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case disputing its validity after the elapse of a long period of time after the dismissal of the plaintiff, does not constitute an assertion that the plaintiff goes against the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith. However, the court below did not present any reason to this point.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on the reason that the plaintiff received retirement allowances, whether the objection was reserved at that time, the reason that the plaintiff filed a claim for nullification of the dismissal of this case after one year and seven months from the dismissal, and the plaintiff's attitude on the dismissal of this case during that period, and should have judged the propriety of the defendant's above assertion in accordance with the facts. However, it is erroneous to do so.

In the end, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the defendant's argument that the lawsuit in this case is not permissible against the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

Concerning the fifth point

The issue can not be a legitimate ground of appeal, as it asserts the reason that occurred after the closing of argument in the court below.

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)