(영문) 대법원 2016.3.24.선고 2015두56144 판결

1. According to Article 24(1) through (3) of the Labor Standards Act with respect to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, an employer needs urgent managerial necessity in order to dismiss workers for managerial reasons, and efforts must be made to avoid dismissal, and persons subject to dismissal shall be selected by setting reasonable and fair criteria, and the methods for avoiding dismissal and the criteria for dismissal shall be notified at least 50 days prior to the date of dismissal to the labor union or the representative of workers organized by the majority of workers or to the representative of workers, and shall consult in good faith. The specific contents of each of the above requirements are not conclusive and fixed, but are primarily determined in relation to the degree of fulfillment of other requirements in specific cases, so whether dismissal by administrative reasons satisfies all of the above requirements should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the individual circumstances constituting the above requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29452, Jul. 9, 202, etc.).

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was making efforts to avoid layoff, and that the criteria for selection of those subject to layoff were fair and reasonable, or that it was difficult to view that the Plaintiff had faithfully consulted on the worker list and the criteria for selection of those subject

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 purport that there were errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles or misapprehension of the legal principles due to the violation of the rules of evidence as to the requirements for layoff. However, even in light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is not recognized

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, unless it is the sole evidence of the facts alleged by the parties, the court may freely decide whether to accept the application for resumption of pleadings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da19121, Jul. 26, 1991). In addition, as the issue of whether to accept the application for resumption of pleadings belongs to the court’s discretion, the court did not accept the application for resumption of pleadings at the time of the closure of pleadings even though the parties had sufficient opportunity to prove their arguments and evidences, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da21337, Sept. 30, 1

The ground of appeal No. 4 is the purport that the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s request for witness and fact-finding, and did not accept the request for resumption of argument, thereby making the appellate trial proceedings unlawful. However, even in light of the records, the witness, etc. claimed by the Plaintiff is not the only evidence of the alleged facts, and the Plaintiff appears to have been sufficiently given an opportunity to assert and prove it since the first instance court. Thus, the lower court’s procedural progress cannot be deemed as unlawful as otherwise

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating Justices, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party, including the costs of participation in the appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.