A. Whether the dismissal constitutes a case where a worker who has not expressed his/her intention to resign inevitably submits his/her written resignation (affirmative)

B. Whether filing a lawsuit disputing the validity of dismissal after a long period of time from the time of receipt of retirement allowance without any reservation or condition of objection against dismissal violates the good faith principle or the good faith principle or the good faith principle

A. Even if an employer receives a written resignation from an employee and completes an employment contract by taking the form of dismissal from a member who accepts it, where the employer has a worker who has no intention to resign submit a written resignation without any choice to do so, it constitutes a dismissal because the employment contract is terminated by the employer's unilateral intent, and thus, it constitutes an unfair dismissal.

B. If an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any objection or condition while receiving retirement allowances, barring any special circumstance, it would be deemed that the dismissal is valid, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal after a long period of time goes against the good faith principle or the good faith doctrine.

a.B. Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 107(b) of the Civil Act; Article 2 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 92Da3670 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2013). Supreme Court Decision 90Da20428 delivered on October 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2816) 91Nu10046 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1324). (b) Supreme Court Decision 91Da39085 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong192, 1303) 92Da1728 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong192,1596)

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na16022 delivered on December 11, 1991

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the quoted evidence, found that the plaintiff was appointed as an employee of the former head of the competent broadcasting station on October 10, 1977 and worked as an employee of the former head of the competent broadcasting station on August 1, 1978. Under the name of social purification and establishment of a public official, the National Security Countermeasure Committee established a large-scale plan for purification of public officials, executives and employees of national enterprises and financial institutions, and journalists, and ordered the defendant corporation to select and dismiss the problematic executives and employees through the competent government office’s cultural public bulletin book, so the former head of the competent broadcasting station at the time of the commencement of the above employment contract constitutes a 10-year dismissal order without any justifiable reason and without any justifiable reason which the defendant should submit a letter of resignation to the employees of all departments including the head of the competent broadcasting station at the time of termination of the employment contract. Thus, the court below determined that it constitutes a 18-year dismissal order of the plaintiff's former head of the competent government office.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to unfair dismissal due to violation of the rules of evidence. There is no reason to argue.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case disputing the validity of the above dismissal from office at the time when 10 years have passed since the plaintiff's dismissal from office was made without any objection or reservation, and the plaintiff received retirement allowances from the defendant Corporation without any objection or reservation, and it was done as a drinking room with marriage, and it did not raise any objection to the defendant's work, and therefore, it cannot be permitted because the lawsuit of this case disputing the validity of the above dismissal from office at the time when 10 years have passed since the plaintiff's dismissal from office was accepted by the above member, was in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith. However, the above argument of the defendant is acknowledged, but the reason alone does not constitute the filing of the lawsuit of this case against the defendant.

However, barring any special circumstance, if an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any objection or condition while receiving retirement allowances, it would be deemed that a dismissal disposition is valid, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal after a long period of time goes against the principle of good faith or the principle of nodual (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da39085, Mar. 13, 1992; 92Da3670, May 26, 1992; 92Da3670, May 26, 1992). Thus, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion regarding the violation of the good faith principle, unless there are any special circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff received retirement allowances and there was an implied dispute about the validity of dismissal from the above member, which constitutes a violation of the good faith principle, and therefore, it constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, this point is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)