2017Da226605 Nullification of dismissal

Plaintiff

Seoul High Court Decision 200

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Hyundai Heavy Industries Ltd.

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Busan High Court Decision 2016Na54360 Decided April 19, 2017

February 25, 2021

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer who intends to dismiss a worker shall be notified in writing of the grounds for and timing of the dismissal. Such provision provides that the employer shall be careful in dismissing the worker through written notification of the grounds for dismissal, etc. In addition, the purpose is to ensure that the existence and timing of dismissal and the reasons therefor are clearly clear so that disputes surrounding the dismissal can be resolved appropriately and easily thereafter, and that workers can respond appropriately to the dismissal. Thus, when the employer gives written notice of the grounds for dismissal in advance, it is necessary to make it possible for the employer to know in detail what the reasons for dismissal are in the employer’s address (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da42324, Oct. 27, 2011). However, if a person subject to dismissal is already aware of the grounds for dismissal and can sufficiently respond thereto, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the provision in Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act even if the employer did not clearly state the grounds for dismissal in written notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201202Da27.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

1) On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Defendant Company for a one-year period of November 30, 2009, and served at Defendant Company’s International Legal Team.

2) On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a valid employment contract with the Defendant Company from November 30, 2010, and did not separately set the termination period of the employment contract.

3) On January 19, 2015, Defendant Company issued a notice of termination of the contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant notice of termination”) to the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015. The purport of the instant notice of termination is that “I will notify you of termination of the employment contract with you on January 23, 2015 pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) of the employment contract which was mutually concluded on March 8, 201,” and does not include the reasons for termination of the contract or separate grounds. The content of Paragraph (2) of the employment contract is that the Plaintiff’s employment contract is not fixed, and that “I must notify you of the termination of the contract with you or pay wages for two months prior to the dismissal of the Plaintiff.”

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it constitutes a notification of violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, since the instant notice of termination of contract corresponding to the notice of dismissal of the Plaintiff does not entirely state the grounds for dismissal.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the notice of dismissal by the notice of termination of the contract in this case was not in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was specifically aware of the grounds for dismissal and was in a situation where the Plaintiff could properly respond thereto. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of notification of dismissal under Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act, thereby adversely affecting

2. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-chul

Chief Justice Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim In-bok