The case holding that the introduction of the interim settlement system of retirement allowances into the annual salary system cannot be deemed to be an amendment to the rules of employment disadvantageous to workers.

The case holding that, after classifying the items of benefits as the standard wages and the job classification classification, it is difficult to view that the rules of benefits as the annual salary system, which adjusts the standard wages according to the grade of assessment by individual assessment and office, are disadvantageous to workers, and that even if the interim settlement system was stipulated in the rules of retirement benefits as follow-up measures following the enforcement of the annual salary system, it is merely a determination of the procedure and method of interim settlement of the retirement allowances, since the interim settlement of accounts is not enforced but it is nothing more than a determination of the procedure and method of interim settlement of accounts.

Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 34(3) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 7379 of January 27, 2005) (see current Article 8(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act)

Kim Jong-m (Law Office General Law Office, Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Long-gu Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Nam-jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2004Kadan5538 decided May 26, 2005

December 2, 2005

1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 58,938,924 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 1976, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Union and retired from office upon dissolution of the Defendant Union on June 30, 2004.

B. The Defendant Union decided to introduce the annual salary system in order to improve the inefficiency of the wage system. The Plaintiff, as a person in charge of its duties, actively knew directors, such as explaining the purpose of introducing the annual salary system to the directors. As a result, the board of directors of the Defendant Union approved it on July 21, 199 (hereinafter “instant employee salary regulations”), and its main contents are as follows.

(a) Persons subject to the annual salary system: Employees of at least two A (in the case of the defendant association, only the plaintiff is subject to its application);

(2) Effective date: July 1, 1999

(3) Details of reorganization: The principal salary, the position allowances, and guidance allowances shall be converted into the base salary, the job allowances, the family allowances, and the special service allowances shall be converted into the job pay, but from 2001 to 2001, the adjustment rate shall be differentiated in accordance with the evaluation grades based on the individual assessment and the office performance evaluation for the previous year.

(4) Interim settlement of interim retirement pay: A person subject to the annual salary system shall make interim settlement of retirement pay by the day preceding the application of the annual salary system at the time of conversion into the annual salary system, and convert it into the annual salary system

C. Accordingly, on July 1, 199, the Plaintiff entered into an annual salary contract with the Defendant union as of December 31, 199, with the term of the contract as of December 31, 199. On July 26, 1999, the Plaintiff applied for interim settlement of the retirement pay. The Plaintiff entered into an annual salary contract by December 31, 200 on a yearly basis from January 1, 200 to December 31, 201.

D. The rules on retirement allowances of the Defendant Union adopted a single-amount system calculated by multiplying the monthly average wage by the number of years of service, from July 1, 1981 to July 30, 1981, and a single-amount system calculated by multiplying the standard wage by the retirement reduction rate, respectively. The Defendant Union received an application for interim retirement allowances of 112,070,947 won [21,427,492 won (i.e., base amount 4,149,090 won x 5,16383) ＋ 90,643,45 won (i.e., base amount 3,089,416 x 3,500 won) from July 1, 1981 to 305, 206 to 305, 1965, 309, 416 won for interim retirement allowances from the Plaintiff’s association to 309, 296, respectively.

E. On November 28, 2002, employees of the Defendant Union, other than the Plaintiff, resolved to introduce an interim settlement system for retirement allowances to all employees through the employees’ meeting, and on December 31, 2002, drafted a written consent for interim settlement of retirement allowances.

[Based on Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence 1 through 3; Gap evidence 4-1 through 4; Eul evidence 6-8; Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-3; Eul evidence 1-2; Eul evidence 4-1 through 3; Eul evidence 5-8; Eul evidence 9-1, 2; Eul evidence 9-1, 9-2; Eul evidence 10; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The introduction of the interim settlement system of retirement allowances into the annual salary system against the Plaintiff on July 21, 1997 was unfavorable to the Plaintiff. Thus, even though the Defendant Union obtained the consent of the majority of employees pursuant to the proviso of Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act, it is null and void without obtaining such consent. Therefore, there is no interim settlement of retirement allowances conducted before December 31, 2002, which introduced the interim settlement system of retirement allowances with the consent of all employees, and the Defendant Union has the duty to provide the Plaintiff with the total amount of KRW 191,192,767 [29,640,640, 086 won [29, 739, 420 won x KRW 5,420 x KRW 1643, 1643, 165 x 365 x 165 x 2945 x 365 x 1975 x 1945 x 275 x 1945 x 1945 x 275 x 19445 x 5 x 194.7.7

3. Determination

First of all, it is difficult to view that the annual salary system was disadvantageous to the plaintiff, since the content of the annual salary system as mentioned above was classified as the standard salary and job classification, and it was merely an adjustment of the standard salary according to the grade of assessment by individual assessment and office. (It is reasonable to view that the plaintiff consented to the introduction of the annual salary system in light of the fact that the plaintiff, prior to the introduction of the annual salary system, provided that the director with the intent of the annual salary system, and entered into an annual salary contract by himself.) The interim adjustment system of retirement pay was already introduced under the Labor Standards Act as amended by Act No. 5245 of Dec. 31, 1996, and it is not mandatory for workers or employers, and since it was merely an interim adjustment procedure and method of the interim adjustment, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's interim adjustment of the salary system was legitimate for the purpose of adopting the retirement salary system as above, since it was not an interim adjustment of the retirement salary system as well as an interim adjustment of the employee's salary system.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the introduction of the annual salary system to the plaintiff and the interim settlement of retirement pay are illegal is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the contrary, it is unfair to conclude it, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed

Judges Kim Chang-soo (Presiding Judge)