[1] Rules of employment applicable to workers who had employment relations after the revision of the rules of employment (=the amended rules of employment)

[2] Where the rules of employment stipulate the application of the probationary period to newly employed workers as selective items, whether the employment contract is deemed to have been employed as regular members unless the application of the probationary period is specified (affirmative)

[1] In principle, since an employer has the authority to prepare and revise the rules of employment, the employer may prepare and revise the rules of employment according to his/her own intent. If an employer amends the rules of employment, regardless of whether it is disadvantageous to the existing employee, the revision of the rules of employment is effective and is a revised rules of employment with the current legal effect, so the amended rules of employment shall apply to employees who have a labor relationship after

[2] If the application of the probationary period to a worker newly employed under the rules of employment is defined as a selective matter, it shall be specified in the employment contract as to whether the probationary period is applied to the worker, and if the employment contract does not specify that the probationary period is applicable, it shall be deemed that the worker is employed as a regular member who is not a probationary worker.

[1] Articles 24 and 96 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Articles 24, 30(1), and 96 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 546), Supreme Court Decision 95Da32631 delivered on December 23, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 482), Supreme Court Decision 97Da14934 delivered on July 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2495) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da4914 delivered on November 26, 1991 (Gong192, 273)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Seoul New Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na61700 delivered on May 13, 1999

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance and the summary of the judgment below

According to the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant's new employee's employment rules are not applicable to the plaintiff's new worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker's worker.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

As a matter of principle, an employer may prepare and revise the rules of employment according to his/her own intent. If an employer amends the rules of employment, regardless of whether it is disadvantageous to the existing employee, an amendment to the rules of employment is effective and its current rules of employment are amended, so the amended rules of employment shall apply to employees who have the employment relationship after the amendment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165, Dec. 22, 1992). If the rules of employment provide that the application of the probationary period to employees newly employed under the rules of employment is selective, it shall be clearly stated in the employment contract as to whether the probationary period is applied to the newly employed employee, and if the employment contract does not specify that the probationary period is applicable, it shall be deemed that the employee is employed as a regular employee, not a temporary employee (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da4914, Nov. 26, 1991).

According to the records, if the defendant's company rules that appear to have been established and implemented on January 3, 1997 (Evidence No. 4) were to have been established and implemented by the defendant, they shall have been classified as light wage rules, purchase business regulations, travel expenses, personnel management regulations, welfare rules and Chapter I employment rules, Chapter II employment rules (Assignment No. 1, 2, 3). Article 1 of the employment rules provides that "the purpose of these rules is to stipulate basic matters concerning the employment of workers in accordance with the Labor Standards Act," and Article 2 provides that "this provision shall apply except as otherwise provided in other provisions concerning the employment conditions of workers," and Article 7 (Management) of Chapter II provides that "the new worker employed as a worker shall complete the prescribed employment period," and therefore, the above provision should not be interpreted as a new provision concerning the employment rules of the defendant's previous employment rules, as it contains a new provision concerning the employment rules and the changed provision concerning the employment rules of the defendant's previous employment rules, and therefore, the above provision concerning the employment regulations of the defendant's company shall not be interpreted as a new provision concerning the employment rules.

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that the dismissal of the plaintiff against the plaintiff is valid as an exercise of the right to cancel the contract with the plaintiff on the premise that the previous rules of employment are not modified and the previous rules of employment are also applied to the conclusion of the contract with the plaintiff is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misunderstanding the legal principles on modification of the rules of employment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)