logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.09.04 2014다210074
직권면직무효확인 등
Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. If an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any objection or impose any condition on the employee while receiving the retirement allowance, the validity of the dismissal shall be recognized, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of the dismissal after a long period of time is not permissible in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of no-competence.

However, there is an objective reason to view that the employee did not recognize the validity of dismissal and did not dispute it.

When peeped, where there exist opposing circumstances, such as the receipt of a retirement allowance under the circumstances where there exist other reasonable grounds, it should not be deemed that the validity of dismissal was uniformly recognized even in the case of receiving a retirement allowance without reservation of explicit objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da51847, Mar. 8, 196; 2005Da38270, Nov. 25, 2005).

The Defendant’s auditor C requested ex officio dismissal of the Plaintiff on November 15, 2010, on the grounds that “the Plaintiff was committing an offense of receiving money and valuables and entertainment from the Defendant’s trading company, and there was a proviso to the Plaintiff’s major members and organizations in the Association to conceal the fact of corruption by raising a wide range of expenses by unlawful means,” etc., as the Defendant’s auditor C requested ex officio dismissal of the Plaintiff, who was in office as the head of the Defendant’s central management office. D ex officio dismissal on the grounds of Article 30(1)2 and 8 of the Defendant’s personnel regulations.

(hereinafter “Ex Officio Dismissal”) b.

The defendant's accounting and the employees belonging to the defendant are the plaintiff on December 21, 2010.

arrow