In accordance with the personnel regulations, if an overseas training member retires within the obligatory service period, whether the training expenses should be refunded even if the company has renounced the business requiring training technology, and even if the overseas technical training member retires within the obligatory service period.

In accordance with the personnel regulations of the company, where a member who has undergone long-term training abroad is required to work for a certain period of time and to refund the full amount of expenses incurred in relation to the training when he/she retires due to his/her dismissal from office or his/her causes attributable to him/her within the compulsory work period, if a member who has completed the technical training retires from office within the compulsory work period, the company should refund the training expenses even if

Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Iron Engineering Corporation

Park Ho-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 9Na36599 delivered on December 1, 1992

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 8,857,163 won and the amount of 5% per annum from March 14, 1989 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to that part shall be dismissed.

1. According to the above evidence No. 1 (Personnel Regulations), No. 2 (C. 3), Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 5 and 6 (each receipt), Gap evidence No. 7, Gap evidence No. 90, Eul evidence No. 10-2, Eul evidence No. 10, and two testimony No. 10-2 (Pledge), the defendant's testimony of the original judgment and the other part of Kim Jong-nam's testimony (except for the portion which are not trusted later) for the above fact-finding No. 97, the defendant company shall conclude the above fact-finding No. 97, and it shall return the above fact-finding No. 1 to the above defendant's 97, No. 197, Nov. 27, 1987; the defendant shall use the defendant's labor training program No. 97, Dec. 16, 2007, the plaintiff company's labor force No. 19677, Dec. 27, 2007>

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount of 8,857,163 won to the plaintiff.

2. As to this, the Defendant was scheduled to dispatch the Defendant to mentmen in order to negotiate labor services among the 2nd mentmen's 2nd mentmen's 2nd mentmen's 8th mentmen's 2nd mentmen' 2nd 8th mentmen's 2nd 2nd 5th mentmen's 6th mentmen's 2nd 6th mentmen's 2nd 5th mentmen's 6th mentmen' 2nd 6th mentmen' 2nd 6th 6th mentmen' 2th mentmen' 2nd 8th mentmen' m2th 1987. The Defendant's 2nd 1st 6th mentmen' 2th mentmen's mentmen's tion with the above 3th mmentmen' 3th mentmen' mir mentmen' tion.)

Second, the defendant requested the plaintiff company to submit a written oath jointly with the joint guarantor that the plaintiff company promised to perform the obligation provisions concerning overseas training while sending overseas training to the above mentor company, but the defendant refused it and did not receive a written pledge, etc., but the defendant sent the defendant to the above mentor company and the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense that the contract was concluded implicitly between the plaintiff company and the defendant to not impose the burden on the defendant due to the defendant's training. Thus, although there was no dispute between the plaintiff company and the defendant that the defendant sent the defendant to Germany without the above written pledge of the argument, it cannot be deemed that the contract was concluded between the plaintiff company and the defendant that the defendant would not bear the training expenses. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

Third, the defendant, upon retirement of the plaintiff company, filed a petition with the Seoul Regional Labor Office on May 17, 1989 that the plaintiff company did not pay retirement allowances because the defendant did not demand the return of training expenses, and accordingly, the plaintiff company made a criminal complaint against the representative director of the plaintiff company at the labor office, and if the defendant made a criminal complaint against the defendant, the plaintiff company promised not to claim the return of training expenses. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff company made the above promise.

Fourth, the defendant's above personnel regulations of the plaintiff company are effective against the defendant when the defendant violated the freedom of choice of the employee under his control. Since the defendant did not agree to the above regulations, the expenses incurred by the defendant's overseas business trip under the direction of the plaintiff company are for the interest of the plaintiff company and thus the plaintiff company should bear the plaintiff company. Thus, the above regulations are merely the exemption period of the obligation to pay training expenses, and the above regulations are not an infringement on the freedom of occupation. The personnel regulations apply regardless of the consent of the worker, since the employer enacted the Labor Standards Act or the collective agreement to the extent that the employer does not conflict with the Labor Standards Act or the collective agreement. Thus, the defendant's

Fifth, even if there was an agreement on specific technology between the employer and the employee, the agreement on specific technology training between the employer and the employee should no longer be effective if the employer discards the business requiring the pertinent training, and no longer requires the pertinent technology. Since the agreement on technical training between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a case where the employee concerned does not require the knowledge received by the relevant employee by abandoning the factory automation business plan itself and dismantling the technical training itself, the agreement on technical training between the plaintiff and the defendant is no longer effective. Therefore, even if the plaintiff company renounced the factory automation business plan, it cannot be deemed that the provision on the duty training under the personnel regulations of the plaintiff company does not apply to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from August 18, 1992 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which can be seen as demanding the plaintiff to return the above expenses for overseas training. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed without merit. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost the plaintiff.

Judges Godo-il (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-jin