The criteria for the payment of retirement allowances in the case of the daily wage relationship which is in fact continued without simple confirmation as to whether the dismissal takes effect for the employees who have been in continuous service and has been appointed again 20 days after the date of dismissal or 4 days after the date of dismissal.

Where a farmland improvement association has employed its employees for a certain period and most of them have created documents as if they were re-designated after 4 or 20 days from the date on which they were appointed or dismissed again on the following day, but in fact, where the employees have been in continuous continuous service during that period, it is reasonable to pay a retirement allowance in accordance with the fixed number of employees under the regulations on remuneration of the association, if the daily-use relationship, which is calculated for daily wages, continues without simple validity, and has been received as a monthly wage, such as regular workers

Plaintiff

Seocheon Farmland Improvement Association's legal interest in lawyer

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na2952 delivered on June 18, 1976

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendants.

(1) First, we examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff was not deemed to have served in continuous service from December 1, 1956 to September 9, 1963, and the court below examined the evidence collection process in order to recognize this fact, and there was no error in this process.

(2) Next, we examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(A) On the first ground for appeal

In the part of the decision of the court below, it is true that the plaintiff was employed as an employee of the defendant association on September 10, 1963. However, in light of the context before and after the decision of the court below, the purport of the decision is that the plaintiff was employed as a temporary employee other than the gardening table. Thus, the decision of the court below does not have any illegality

(B) On the second ground of appeal:

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the defendant union has employed the plaintiff for a certain period and most of the defendant union has created documents as if they were reappointed after 4 or 20 days from the day immediately following the appointment or dismissal of the plaintiff again, but the plaintiff has been in fact continuously continued to serve for that period. The records are not contradictory to the reasons in the process of fact-finding of the court below. It is reasonable to deem that the dismissal does not take effect in the case of the actual continued employment. Furthermore, even if the daily wage is calculated for one-day, it is reasonable to pay a retirement allowance in accordance with the fixed number of employees under the rules on the remuneration of the defendant union if the daily wage is continued without simple employment relationship and received the wage as a monthly wage as a regular worker. This purport of the court below is just and there is no unlawful ground for misunderstanding the legal principles of the employee under the rules on the remuneration of the defendant union. There is no violation of law against the Supreme Court Decision (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da165, 1626, Jun. 24, 197

(C) On the third ground of appeal:

Even if the Defendant Union’s remuneration provision was enforced on October 1, 1970, it is justifiable to apply this provision to the Plaintiff who served in the year from September 10, 1963 to January 18, 1974. This is because the Defendant’s agent is the person who is also applying the above remuneration provision to the executives and employees who work before the enforcement. (See Chapter 141 of the record) Accordingly, even though the lower court did not examine whether there was a provision of the Defendant’s remuneration provision from September 10, 1963 to September 30, 1970, it is not an unlawful trial.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and all of its appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each of the original defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)