(a) Whether the claim for confirmation of invalidity of dismissal, which was filed after one year and seven months have passed without any particular reason, after receiving a retirement allowance without reservation after dismissal, violates the good faith principle (affirmative)

B. Whether an appeal against dismissal can be viewed as indicated against the company solely on the ground that the dismissal allowance was not received at the time of receiving the retirement allowance (negative)

C. Whether the rules of employment are limited to “in-house” if the rules of employment provide that “when an assembly or a printed article is distributed without the approval of the company,” and that “when an internal assembly, speech, or printed article is distributed without the permission of the company” (affirmative) and the criteria for determining whether the rules of employment are “in-house” and “in-house”.

D. Whether the act of distributing printed materials to workers who work in front of the company's factory work time constitutes "in the company" under the above provision (affirmative)

A. A claim for nullification of dismissal filed after one year and seven months have elapsed without any particular reason after the dismissal of the workers, without any reservation from the company, is not allowed under the good faith principle.

B. It cannot be deemed that the employee expressed his objection to the dismissal disposition against the company solely on the ground that the employee did not receive the dismissal allowance upon receiving the retirement allowance.

C. As to the grounds for disciplinary action, the rules of employment provide that “when an internal meeting or printed matter is distributed without the approval of the company,” and the disciplinary provision provides that “when an internal meeting, speech, or printed matter is distributed without the permission of the company, without the permission of the company,” this provision provides the same grounds for disciplinary action, and thus, the provision of the above rules of employment provides that “within the company” is limited. However, in light of the purpose of the above provision for maintaining the order of the company’s work, whether an act in the internal company is not determined solely on the place, but on the basis

D. The act of distributing printed materials to workers who work before the company's factory work time does not constitute an act of distributing printed materials in company's right to command labor.

(b)Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 27 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu19804 delivered on September 29, 1989 (Gong1989, 1577) (Gong1991, 177)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and 1 other

Unification Corporation

Busan High Court Decision 89Na9104 delivered on September 7, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 received retirement allowances without any objection from the defendant company on September 3 of the same year after they were dismissed on August 15, 1986. Thus, the court below held that the claim for nullification of the dismissal of the above plaintiffs, which filed a lawsuit after the lapse of one year and seven months without any specific reason, is not allowed in accordance with the principle of good faith. Such judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu19804 delivered on September 29, 1989 and Supreme Court Decision 90Meu25512 delivered on November 23, 1990). In addition, the above plaintiffs' failure to receive retirement allowances at the time of receiving retirement allowances cannot be viewed as expressing their objection against the dismissal against the defendant company, and it is not reasonable to discuss it.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

With respect to the disciplinary reasons, the rules of employment provide that "when an assembly or a printed article is distributed without the approval of the company," and the disciplinary rules provide that "if an internal assembly, a speech, or a printed article is distributed without the approval of the company, without the permission of the company, the two provisions stipulate the same disciplinary reasons, and thus, the provisions of the above rules of employment are limited to "in the company". However, in light of the purpose of the above provisions for maintaining order in the company, the determination of whether an act in the company is an act in the company should be based on whether the right to command the labor of the defendant company is within the scope of the right to command the labor of the defendant company, rather than on the temporary face. Therefore, the act of the plaintiff 3 distributing printed articles to the workers who work in the workplace before the first factory of the defendant company at the time of attendance does not constitute an act of distributing printed articles in the company to which the

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)