(a) The case holding that, if the collective agreement provides that a female worker shall be granted a monthly physiological leave on a one-day basis, and the absence on a one-day daily basis during a month shall be replaced with a physiological leave and shall not be regarded as absence from work, a female worker shall be absent from work without permission for three consecutive days after absence from work;

(b) The case holding that the collective agreement provisions providing for the grounds for dismissal for three consecutive days of absence from office without justifiable cause for one month do not conflict with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act;

(a) The case holding that where the collective agreement provides that a company shall grant a female worker a monthly physiological leave, and that a female worker's absence on the first day of a month shall not be deemed absence from work, the company shall be deemed to be absence from work without permission, even if absence from work without permission on the part of a female worker in advance after absence from work, the employer shall not be deemed absence from work without permission on the part of the company on the first day of a month, and it shall be interpreted that a female worker's absence from work without permission on the part of a female worker who was absent from work without permission on the part of a female worker, and that a female worker's absence from work for three consecutive days after the three consecutive absence from work shall be deemed to be absence from work without permission on the part of the company.

(b) The case holding that the collective agreement provisions providing for the grounds for dismissal for three consecutive days of absence from office without justifiable cause for one month do not conflict with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act;

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellant] Han-Gyeong Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na13774 delivered on October 19, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below interpreted that the defendant company under Article 23 of the collective agreement of the defendant company provides that a female worker shall be deemed to be absent from work on a monthly basis, and that a female worker shall not be deemed to be absent from work on a monthly basis, and that even if a female worker is absent from work without a prior request for a physiological leave, the employer shall not be allowed to be absent from work on a monthly basis, and that the employer shall not be allowed to be absent from work on the first day of the month if the female worker wishes to be absent without delay after the absence from work without a prior request for a physiological leave, and that the employer shall not be allowed to be absent from work on the first day of the month. It is recognized that the plaintiff was absent from work on the three consecutive days and after the plaintiff was absent from work on the next day by her mother's mother's death, and therefore the plaintiff's three consecutive absence from work on the second day constitutes absence without permission.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding or determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the relevant laws and regulations, which provide a physiological leave, or by violating the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding. In addition, it does not conflict with Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act to provide that the defendant's dismissal disposition of this case based on the provisions of the above collective agreement is valid, and the court below also ruled that the dismissal disposition of this case is valid, on the premise of the above opinion, since it is not against Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, and there is no omission of determination as to the legitimacy of dismissal. All arguments are groundless

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)