A. Criteria for applying the so-called principle of invalidation

(b) The case holding that if workers received retirement allowances without any objection after the dismissal, and thereafter received compensation under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. of Public Officials on Maritime Affairs, 10 years after the dismissal, filing a lawsuit to nullify the invalidity of dismissal disposition after the ten years have passed from the date of dismissal, and the exercise of rights is not allowed pursuant to the principle of good faith or the principle of invalidation;

C. In the above "B", the employer's compensation regulations stipulate that those who wish to be reinstated among those who were dismissed shall be determined separately by the employer, and whether the application of the principle of good faith or the principle of invalidation varies solely on the ground that the employee expressed his/her wish to be specially employed at the time of applying for compensation (negative)

A. Determination of the length of the invalidation period (the period during which a right is not exercised) as necessary for the application of the so-called principle and whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that the other party, who is an obligor, would not exercise his/her right, should be made reasonably in accordance with social norms, not by uniformly determining the validity period, but by taking into account all the circumstances and objective existence of both the right holder and the other party along with the length of the period during which no right is exercised at each specific case

B. The case holding that if workers received retirement allowances without any objection after the dismissal, and thereafter received compensation under the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc., of the Retired Public Officials in 1980 after nine years thereafter, filing a lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal disposition for ten years after the date of dismissal shall not be permitted to exercise the right against the good faith principle or in accordance with the principle of invalidation.

C. In the case of the above “B”, there is a provision that the employer’s compensation provision provides that those who wish to be reinstated shall be separately determined by the employer, and the application of the principle of good faith or the principle of invalidation is not different solely on the ground that the employee expressed his/her wish to be specially employed at the time of applying for

(b)Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Da3670 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2013). Supreme Court Decision 91Da3018 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 884). Supreme Court Decision 92Da3809 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2363) (Gong192, 2651).

Plaintiff 1 and four others

National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (Law Firm Jung & Yang, Attorney Presiding over)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na40322 delivered on April 29, 1992

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized that the Plaintiffs were subject to the aforementioned disposition of dismissal for public officials and executives and employees of government-invested institutions on July 1980, and that each disposition of dismissal for public officials was taken on the basis of a separate plan for purification of public officials and executives and employees of government-invested institutions. The Plaintiffs were aware of their intention of resignation under the direction of Defendant management or employment, and the Defendant was aware of such fact, and thus, deemed that the said disposition of dismissal for public officials was null and void by the unilateral intention of the employer. The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs were in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 7 of the Defendant’s personnel management rules, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ application for dismissal for dismissal for public officials for dismissal for the same period of 10 years after the above disposition of dismissal for public officials and employees of government-invested institutions. The lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ application for dismissal for dismissal for 19 years from the date of the above disposition of dismissal for public officials without any reservation for dismissal for 198 years from the date of termination of employment.

However, since the exercise of the right should be in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith and it is impossible to abuse the right. Thus, if the right holder fails to exercise the right within a reasonable period despite the opportunity for actual exercise of the right, and the exercise of the right is recognized as violating the principle of trust and good faith which controls the whole legal order, it shall not be permitted pursuant to the so-called principle of invalidation. If the right holder's new exercise of the right is recognized as violating the principle of trust and good faith, it shall not be permitted to exercise the right. The issue of whether there is a justifiable reason to believe that the right holder's exercise of the right should not exercise the right (the period for which the right is not exercised) as necessary for the application of the principle of invalidation and the other party's exercise of the right, as well as the head of the period for which the right holder did not exercise the right and the other party's exercise of the right, it shall be determined reasonably pursuant to social norms by establishing a new system from 10 years to 198Da31989 delivered on January 21, 19898.

In addition, Article 10 (Special Employment) of the above Compensation Regulations (Evidence A No. 2) prepared by the defendant provides that the person who wishes to be reinstated among the dismissed persons shall be determined separately by the chairperson, and the fact that the plaintiffs expressed their wish to be specially employed at the time of applying for compensation is recognized is the time of the original adjudication. However, the mere fact that there is no data to recognize that there is a case of special employment as prescribed by the chairperson, in this case, there is no data to recognize that there is a case of special employment, does not change the above in applying the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of invalidation. If a special employment is conducted in the form of new employment, and the plaintiffs expressed their intent to be specially employed on the premise that it is, the plaintiffs

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the good faith and invalidation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

For this reason, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices