2016Da224077 Nullification, etc. of dismissal

1. C

2. G.

The debtor's shares of H, a receiver of H, are subject to the lawsuit of the I

H Company H’s receiver K’s taking over the lawsuit of K H

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2017454 Decided April 22, 2016

August 24, 2016

The part of the judgment below regarding the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where seeking confirmation that dismissal of workers is null and void and claiming wages for a period during which workers could have provided labor, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the employer and the employer. As such, inasmuch as it is impossible to recover the status as an employee if the retirement age, which is the inevitable ground for dismissal, has already been attained under the personnel regulations of the employer at the time of the conclusion of fact-finding proceedings, it is difficult to recover the status as an employee, and thus, there is no interest in confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da10

According to the records, Article 47 (1) of the Rules of Employment in the Defendant’s Textiles Section 47 (1) of the Rules of Employment stipulates that “the retirement age of employees shall be December 31 of the year in which they reach 55 years of age,” and Article 19 of the Rules of Employment in the Defendant’s dry Sector stipulates that “the retirement age of employees shall be December 31 of the year in which they reach 55 years of age,” and that Plaintiff C was employed as a worker in the Defendant’s textile sector and the case’s body, respectively, as the Plaintiff’s textile sector came as of December 31, 2015. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ retirement age has already reached the retirement age as of March 16, 2016, which is the date of the closing of argument in the lower court, and thus, it is impossible for the Plaintiffs to recover their status as workers, barring any special circumstances. Ultimately, there is no interest in the Plaintiffs’ claim to nullify the dismissal of this case.

Therefore, the court below should have dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for nullification of the dismissal because the plaintiffs' claim for nullification of the dismissal was unlawful because there was no benefit of confirmation, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the benefit of confirmation. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim In-bok

Justice Park Jong-hee

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il