The case holding that the dismissal of workers in charge of building management who wish not to move to the above company while entrusting the business of managing building to the service company was done according to the need for business management, and it was justifiable in view of the fact that the procedure such as consultation to be done with the workers under the good faith principle was fulfilled.

The case affirming the conclusion that, in a case where a family-friendly association, which purchased and managed a building, decided to entrust the management work to the service-specialized company prior to being notified of the establishment of a trade union and accordingly entrusted the management work of the building to the above service-specialized company, and where some workers refused to change their occupation and dismissed them, the dismissal disposition was conducted in accordance with the business needs rather than suspected of joining the trade union, and it did not go through consultation with the workers under the good faith principle.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1145 (Gong1989, 531)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

1. The ratio of the population of cultural species and the ratio of the population of the deceased.

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na8786 delivered on July 3, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, since since 1986 time evidence purchased ○○ building from around 1986 to managing it, the court below decided that six workers, including the plaintiffs, who were engaged in the management of the above ○○ building, purchased ○○ building and notified the 197 July 27, 198 to the specialized service company of the experience and knowledge in the management of the building, and that the 1987 committee decided to entrust the management of the above building to the specialized service company on July 25, 1989, and accordingly, entered into a service contract with the non-party New Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd.") on August 5, 1989, and the above trade union notified the non-party Co., Ltd. of this fact to the non-party Co., Ltd. around July 27, 198, and that it did not comply with the terms of dismissal of the plaintiffs Co., Ltd.

In light of the records, it can be acknowledged that the employees at the time when the above ○○ building was managed directly by the defendant clan clan-friendly association did not wish to transfer to the non-party company, but the non-party company did not wish to move to the non-party company. However, the remaining recognized facts, that is, before the plaintiff et al. was notified of the fact that the non-party company entered the Seoul Regional Building Facility Management Trade Union, the management committee of the defendant Religious Association decided to entrust the management of the above ○ building to the non-party company, and accordingly, entrusted the management of the above building to the non-party company. Thus, notwithstanding the above mistake of facts, the court below's finding that the dismissal of the plaintiffs by the defendant clan-friendly association was done not by suspicion of the plaintiffs joining the non-party trade union, but by the need for management, it cannot be said that the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or failing to deliberate on the facts in violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, as long as the officers of the defendant clan clan do not specialize in the management of the building, it is objectively deemed that the management of the above ○ building was entrusted to the specialized service company due to the lack of knowledge and experience in the building management. In addition, as the judgment of the court below duly recognized, the defendant clan clan agreed to appoint the plaintiffs between the non-party company and the non-party company at their wishes while entrusting the management of the above ○○ building to the non-party company, and notified the plaintiffs of this fact, if the plaintiffs did not comply with it, the defendant clan clan clan clan would have gone through consultation with the plaintiffs under the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu145, Feb. 28, 1989). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the purport of the same purport is reasonable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reorganization dismissal as pointed out, and there is no reasonable ground for appeal in this case.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)