[1] The legal nature of the retirement disposition based on the ground that does not constitute a ground for automatic extinguishment of employment relationship among the grounds for retirement (=a dismissal) and the standard of interpretation of the above ground for retirement

[2] The case holding that in case where the subway Corporation has agreed to minimize disciplinary actions against union members and association members related to the act of interference with the operation of labor and subway extension, and that the Corporation should not dismiss workers, which was convicted of the above interference act based on the rules of employment, the above agreement should be violated

[1] In a case where an employer provides the grounds for a certain reason as a reason for the automatic retirement or dismissal and provides the procedure different from ordinary dismissal or dismissal, it shall be determined reasonably in light of the purport of the provision or the content of the other reason for the automatic retirement, unless the reason for the automatic termination of employment, such as the death or retirement age of the worker, the expiration of the term of the labor contract, etc., appears to be the ground for the automatic termination of the employment relationship. As such, if the rules of employment stipulate the reason for the automatic termination of the employment relationship as the ground for the automatic termination of the employment relationship as above, it shall be determined reasonably in light of the purport of the provision or the content of the other reason for the automatic retirement.

[2] The case holding that, in case where workers of subway Corporation were convicted of the interference with the extension of subway lines, but later agreed that the Corporation and the labor union members should minimize disciplinary actions against the above extension operation, and that the dismissal should not be made, it shall be decided that, at least in terms of dismissal, the measures taken by the Corporation against the above workers on the basis of the rules of employment shall be inconsistent with the above exemption agreement

[1] Articles 30 (see current Article 23), 33 (see current Article 28), and 96 (see current Article 93), Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Article 1 [general administrative disposition] Articles 2, 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 30 (see current Article 23), 33 (see current Article 28), and 96 (see current Article 93), Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition] Articles 2, 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Articles 30 (see current Article 23), 33 (see current Article 28), and 96 (see current Article 93), Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [general administrative disposition] Articles 2, 19, and 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da54210 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3160), Supreme Court Decision 96Da21065 delivered on October 29, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3524), Supreme Court Decision 98Du18848 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 211)

Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation (Law Firm Seocho, Attorneys Park Sang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor 1

Intervenor 2 and one other (Law Firm Doll, Attorneys Gyeong-jin et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Nu6101 Delivered on December 20, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. The part as to the intervenor joining the defendant 2

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is just that the court below determined that the dismissal disposition against the above defendant's Intervenor by the plaintiff Corporation was abused the disciplinary discretion after citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the disciplinary discretion.

B. The part as to the intervenor joining the defendant 3

In a case where an employer provides that the occurrence of a certain reason as a reason for his/her automatic retirement or dismissal, and the procedure is ordinarily dismissed or disciplinary action, unless the reason for his/her automatic retirement appears to be the reason for the automatic termination of labor relations such as the death or retirement age of a worker, the termination of the term of a labor contract, etc., a disposition of his/her automatic retirement shall be deemed as a dismissal subject to restrictions as prescribed in Article 30 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 8372 of Apr. 11, 2007). As above, if the rules of employment, etc. provide that the reason for his/her automatic termination of labor relations is not the reason for his/her automatic termination, the meaning shall be determined reasonably in light of the purport of the provision or the contents of other reasons for his/her automatic retirement (see

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, found the facts as stated in its judgment, and found the above defendant's assistant intervenor guilty as interference with the extension of one hour in subway as of December 9, 2002, but agreed that the plaintiff Corporation and the union member's disciplinary action with respect to the extension operation as of December 16, 2002 and that the plaintiff Corporation and the union member's union member's disciplinary action should be minimized and should not be dismissed, and at least it should be exempted from the employer at least in terms of dismissal. Thus, it is just to determine that the plaintiff corporation's automatic measures against the above defendant's assistant intervenor are inconsistent with the above exemption agreement between the plaintiff corporation and the union members, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor 1

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the judgment below that the court below denied the legitimacy of the industrial action of this case and did not abuse the authority of disciplinary discretion after recognizing the facts as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance which partially admitted the grounds of the judgment, and that the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor of this case does not constitute an abuse of the authority of disciplinary discretion. There are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the legitimacy of industrial action and the authority of disciplinary discretion, nor there are no errors in

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)