[1] The meaning of "disadvantageous treatment" under Article 36 (1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State

[2] Whether personnel regulations that have differences in occupation and class within the same workplace according to a reasonable standard are invalid (negative), and whether such regulations are excluded from the application to workers employed in accordance with the employment obligation of persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State (negative)

[3] The case holding that the recruitment of workers in extraordinary civil service based on the employment order of the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs and the provision of salary class do not constitute discriminatory treatment

[1] Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act prohibits an employer from providing discriminatory treatment to workers on the ground of social status, and Article 36(1) of the former Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291, Jan. 13, 1997) prohibits an employer from providing that “Any institution for vocational guidance shall not treat any person employed under this Act at a disadvantage compared to other employees in respect of all kinds of treatment, such as assignment, promotion, and raise in salary.” The term “favorable treatment” as referred to in the above Act means that an employer unfairly discriminates against any person of distinguished service to the State on the ground that he/she is an employee who is

[2] If reasonable standards are established in consideration of various circumstances, such as the nature, content, type of work, status of human resources, etc. provided by workers at the relevant workplace, the number of employees, qualifications for new employment, calculation of salary, etc. may vary depending on the type and class in the same workplace. According to such standards, the personnel regulations determined by an employer may not be deemed null and void by law on the ground that those regulations are different from, or are somewhat unfavorable to, public officials or employees of the same kind of company, and the application of such regulations shall not be excluded on the ground that those regulations are employees employed according to the employment obligation for persons, etc.

[3] The case holding that the recruitment of workers in extraordinary civil service and the grant of their salary class based on the employment order of the Minister of Patriots and Veterans Affairs do not constitute discriminatory treatment

[1] Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 31 of the former Act on Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of Jan. 13, 1997), Article 32 (Article 32 of the current Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State), Article 36 (1) (Article 36 (1) of the current Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State) / [2] Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 31 of the former Act on Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 5291 of Jan. 13, 1997) (Article 32 of the current Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State), Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 36 (1) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State

[3] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu17009 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2142) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13589 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 280) decided July 8, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2449)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorneys Kim Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na6072 delivered on June 22, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act prohibits an employer from providing discriminatory treatment to workers on the ground of their social status, and Article 36(1) of the former Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State (amended by Act No. 5291, Jan. 13, 1997) prohibits an employer from providing discriminatory treatment by stipulating that “Any institution for vocational guidance shall not treat any person employed under this Act at a disadvantage compared to other employees in respect of all kinds of treatment, such as assignment to a position, promotion, and raise in salary.” The term “favorable treatment” as referred to in the above Act means that any unfavorable treatment is unreasonably discriminatory treatment on the ground that a person is an employee employed on the basis

In addition, if reasonable standards are established in consideration of various conditions, such as the nature, content, form of work, status of human resources, etc. provided by workers at the relevant workplace, the number of employees according to the type of occupation, the number of employees, and the calculation of salary class may vary depending on the type and class of occupation, etc. within the same workplace, and the personnel regulations determined by the employer according to such standards are different from those concerning public officials or employees of the same kind of company, or are somewhat unfavorable to them, and the application of such regulations cannot be deemed null and void by law.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was designated as a public official on duty; (b) the process and purpose of the establishment of the Defendant Company; (c) the background and purpose of the establishment of the Defendant Company; (d) the employment rules on the personnel management and remuneration of the Defendant Company; (c) the details of the employment rules on the Defendant Company’s personnel management and remuneration; and (d) the current number of employees and the current number of employees according to the kinds of employees of the Defendant Company; and (d) based on such factual basis, the Defendant Company employed the Plaintiff as a public official on extraordinary duty after consultation with the Plaintiff and the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, with the relationship that the current number of employees of Grades 5 through 6, who did not meet the qualifications for new employment of the Plaintiff (in excess of the age) was considerably exceeded the fixed number of employees; and (e) granting the Plaintiff a salary equivalent to those of Grades 6, 3, 6, 6, and 3, based on the Plaintiff’s academic background and experience.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)