In a case where the retirement age has expired at the time of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings, whether there is interest in confirmation of action seeking nullification

If an action of dismissal against a worker constitutes an actual dismissal, seeking confirmation of the invalidation thereof and claiming wages for the period during which the worker could have provided work, it is obvious that the action of nullification of dismissal is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the company and the company. Thus, it is impossible to recover the status as an employee if the retirement age, which is the inevitable ground for dismissal, has already been attained under the personnel regulations of the company at the time of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings, it is difficult to recover the status as an employee.

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Da139 delivered on June 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1266), Supreme Court Decision 94Da401 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1826), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu12347 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 265)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Mod Question Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Samjin General Law Office, Attorney Shin Sung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na43476 delivered on January 26, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, since the plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed a claim for wages during the period during which the defendant's dismissal of the above plaintiffs against the above plaintiffs constituted actual dismissal, seeking confirmation of nullity and providing labor, it is evident that the lawsuit to nullify the dismissal of the above plaintiffs is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the defendant and the defendant. As duly established by the court below, it is impossible for the above plaintiffs to recover their status as the defendant's worker if their retirement age, which is the ground for immediate dismissal, has already been established under the personnel regulations of the defendant at the time of the closing of argument in the court below. Thus, the lawsuit to confirm the dismissal of the above plaintiffs, as there is no interest in confirmation.

The judgment below to the same purport is just (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011 delivered on April 11, 1995), and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in confirmation.

2. In light of the relevant evidence and records, the fact-finding by the court below on the grounds that the plaintiffs submitted each written resignation to the defendant and the process of the dismissal from office based on the written resignation is all acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts by violating the rules of evidence, and even if the plaintiff 2 received retirement consolation benefits for 3 months, even if the court below erred by admitting it as 6 months, it does not constitute an unlawful cause affecting the conclusion of the judgment. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)