(a) Facts that the amended retirement allowance regulations have not raised any objection thereto, and whether the amended retirement allowance regulations have been ratified;

B. The base point of time to determine whether the consent of the employee group is reasonable by social norms as a substitute for the consent of the employee group

(c) The case holding that the amendment of the rules on retirement benefits is unreasonable by social norms instead of the consent of the employee group;

A. In fact, it is not possible to ask the entire workers' intent at the time of the amendment of the rules of retirement by collective decision-making method and it is unreasonable to request the employer to take such measures, merely with the amendment of the rules of retirement by a government-invested institution after the resolution of the board of directors or the approval of the competent authority, it cannot be substituted for the employees' implied consent or ratification with respect to the amendment of the rules of retirement, which constitutes disadvantageous changes in the rules of employment. This circumstance cannot be the basis for recognizing that the employees of a government-invested institution have implied consent or ratification to the amendment, and it cannot be deemed that the employees of a government-invested institution have implicitly consented to or ratified the amendment of the rules of retirement only if they did not raise any objection to the amendment for seven years after the amendment.

B. 8 years have passed since the amendment was made since it was based on the situation at the time of the amendment in determining whether the consent of the employee group is reasonable in terms of social norms as a substitute for the consent of the employee group, and the fact that the plaintiffs were recognized as a trade union after their retirement is not reasonable in determining the validity of the amendment of the above retirement allowance provision in relation to the plaintiffs.

(c) The case holding that the amendment of the retirement allowance rules is unreasonable by social norms instead of the consent of the employee group.

Article 95(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4099 of March 29, 1989)

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 92Da54630 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Dong) 93Da17898 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993, 2606). Supreme Court Decision 90Da15457 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1171) 91Da46922 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2858)

Plaintiff 1 and 13 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Kim Young-young

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na253 delivered on September 17, 1992

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the amendment of the retirement allowance provision of January 1, 1981 by Defendant Corporation was made to lower the payment rate of the retirement allowance and was made disadvantageously to the employees, at the time of the amendment, the Defendant Corporation did not establish a trade union, and did not have any other organization to gather workers' opinions, and it was virtually impossible to ask the employees' consent within a short period under the initiative of the employees. Since the number of workers was 377 or more, it was not possible to ask the employees in a collective decision-making method, as the proviso to Article 95 of the amended Labor Standards Act does not impose a positive obligation to obtain the consent of the employees, it is difficult to expect the employer to take such measures. Accordingly, it is difficult to expect the employer to realize the above provision because it was difficult to expect the above revision, if the amendment was made with the resolution of the board of directors and the approval of the competent authority, it was reasonable to deem the Plaintiffs to have taken considerable measures, including the Plaintiffs, for the retirement allowance from January 1, 1981 to the amendment.

However, it is in fact impossible to ask the entire employees' intent at the time of the amendment of the retirement allowance provision in question by collective decision-making method and it was unreasonable to demand the employer to take such measures, and the amendment of the retirement allowance provision cannot be substituted by the employee group's implied consent or ratification with respect to the amendment of the above rules of employment, which is disadvantageous to the disadvantage of the employee group, due to the amendment of the rules of employment after the resolution of the board of directors or the approval of the competent authority, and this circumstance cannot be the basis for recognizing that there was an implied consent or ratification of the above rules of employment, and it cannot be said that the employee of the defendant corporation, including the plaintiffs, did not object to the amendment of the above rules of employment for a period of seven years after the amendment, and it cannot be deemed that the court below explicitly consented or ratified the above amendment. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on implied consent or ratification with respect to the amendment of the rules of employment.

Therefore, there is reason to point out this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the amendment of the retirement allowance provision in this case was effective since the amendment of the retirement allowance provision in this case is reasonable in terms of social norms, since the amendment of the retirement allowance provision in this case is reasonable in light of the following: (a) the payment rate of the retirement allowance was higher than that of the public official; (b) the payment rate of the retirement allowance was higher than that of the public official; (c) the expansion of the scope of the wage, which forms the basis for the calculation of the retirement allowance; and (d) the payment rate of the retirement allowance for the period before the amendment was changed in favor of some workers; and (e) the payment rate of the retirement allowance was protected by the previous provision; and (e) the labor union formed after the retirement of the plaintiffs was effective when concluding the collective agreement with the defendant corporation.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiffs retired from the defendant Corporation in April 198, and the labor union of the defendant Corporation concluded a collective agreement on July 4, 1989 and agreed to apply mutatis mutandis the retirement allowance provision of the defendant Corporation as of January 1, 1981, and recognized the validity of the retirement allowance provision as of January 1, 1981. Thus, in determining the reasonableness of social norms that can replace the consent of the workers group, it must be based on the situation at the time of the amendment, so eight years have passed after the amendment, and the fact that the labor union was recognized as of July 1, 1989 after the retirement of the plaintiffs that it was recognized as the labor union was in relation to the plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, even if the amendment of the retirement allowance rules was made in accordance with the government's adjustment policy on the grounds of financial pressure on the management of government-invested institutions and profit-making activities due to the excessive increase in the level of wages of the executives and employees belonging to the government-affiliated invested institutions at the time, and equity with the general public, it can not be viewed that it is reasonable in terms of social norms without the consent of the employee group (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da32357 delivered on November 27, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da49324 delivered on January 26, 1993). According to the records, although the amendment of the retirement allowance rules in this case was made together with the amendment to include the bonus, hours, night work, night work, and annual monthly allowance in the basic wages of the employee group at the time of the amendment, it is difficult to see that the amendment of the rules in this case is reasonable instead of the consent of the employee group in light of the motive and scope of the amendment.

It is reasonable to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)