The validity of the bylaws or agreements to compensate for the required expenses if the overseas training workers do not work for a certain period after their return;

The rule or agreement that an employee dispatched overseas shall work for a certain period from the date of returning to his/her country does not violate Article 103 or 104 of the Civil Act, and the rules or agreement that compensates for the expenses incurred in returning expenses incurred in the dispatch overseas shall not be deemed the term of the labor contract, but the term of the exemption from the obligation to return expenses incurred in the dispatch overseas. Therefore, it does not violate Article 21 of

Articles 103, 104 of the Civil Act, Articles 24 and 21 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da2565 delivered on January 29, 1974, 80Da590 Delivered on July 8, 1980

Twin Electric Industry Co., Ltd.

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 81Na186 delivered on December 11, 1981

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the amount of KRW 901,719, which corresponds to the part of the service after training, shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The appeal on the remainder of the defendant is dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant worked as the design director of the plaintiff company for 3 years from February 27, 1978 to May 9, 1978, the court below determined that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that he had received training on the mechanical design from Switzerland and Western Germany for 1978, and pursuant to the travel expense rules and education and training rules of the plaintiff company, the overseas business trip employees with the same business trip period of 2 months to 6 months shall work for the plaintiff company at least 3 years after their return, and shall pay all the expenses and allowances that he received during the business trip period of 3 years from 197 days to 3 years before their return, and the defendant shall submit a written commitment to this effect prior to their departure, and therefore, the defendant shall not be deemed to have satisfied the above provision of the Labor Standards Act to exclude the plaintiff company from returning to Korea on the ground that the above provision of the Labor Standards Act was not unlawful after the expiration of 3 years prior to their return to Korea.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.

Point 2,

The court below rejected the defendant's defense that the defendant's act of withdrawing from the company was inevitable due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff company in this case where the plaintiff company's act of withdrawing from the company was taken due to the plaintiff company's fault, and the plaintiff failed to comply with the promise to supply the apartment to the defendant. However, the court below's decision is just in light of the records, and there is no finding of illegality contrary to the principle of equity. Ultimately, the court below's decision is groundless in light of the facts that the defendant's act of withdrawing from the company was not justified in this case where the defendant's act of offering the apartment to the plaintiff company was inevitable due to the reason attributable to the plaintiff company.

Point 3,

The court below did not dispute the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff company's demand for reimbursement of training expenses is excluded from this case's training expenses after deducting only 1/3 of the amount of obligation period corresponding to the period of service after training from the defendant's assertion that it should be excluded from this case's training expenses. The plaintiff sent a peremptory notice (No. 1 and No. 2) to the defendant that the plaintiff company deducted 901,719 won equivalent to the amount of service period after training expenses from the training expenses and claimed compensation for the balance. However, it is obvious in light of the purport of oral argument that the highest notice was prepared in the first place that the plaintiff cannot seek a legal return of the amount of service after training, so it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff presented a proposal to deduct or deduct the amount of the money from the defendant's obligation, and even if it is viewed as exemption of family expenses, according to the above highest letter and the purport of oral argument, it did not dismiss the defendant's payment of the above amount of 90 won and delay damages from the training expenses by October 15, 1979.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 6 (Education and Training Regulations), when an overseas trainee fails to fulfill his mandatory service period after returning to Korea, the training expenses shall be returned, but in special cases recognized by the president, the amount of compensation may be reduced or exempted. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, when the plaintiff company notified the defendant of the return of training expenses, etc., the plaintiff company claims for the deduction of 901,719 won in the amount corresponding to the portion of service after the defendant's training. Even according to the plaintiff's preparatory document (Records No. 177) submitted by the plaintiff, it is the purport that the amount can be reduced when the compensation is made when the defendant pays the amount within the prescribed period. In light of the above circumstances, it is recognized that it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff reduced the amount corresponding to the portion of service after the above training expenses to the defendant, and even after the record, there is no evidence that the plaintiff's expression of intent to be exempted is an error or a juristic act that is a condition to suspend the payment.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the amount of 901,719 won corresponding to the above amount of work after the above training should be deducted from the training expenses, and ordered to pay the defendant's objection, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing facts without any evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, and the failure to reverse this, is against justice and equity, and therefore, it is therefore justified.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the defendant regarding the above KRW 901,719 of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's appeal against the remaining part is without merit. Therefore, the appeal against the dismissed part of the judgment below is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the bench.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)