Other dismissal and legitimate reasons for urgent managerial needs, etc. for the continuation of an enterprise;

In order to continue the company due to the reduction in the amount of leaf tobacco export which has been continuously continued for a long time on the part of the employer, the deterioration in the assessed amount of won currency, and the aggravation of the production of leaf tobacco export products, there was an urgent managerial need to not reduce part of the employees for the company's existence. Prior to that, considerable efforts have been made to avoid dismissal, such as rationalizing the management policy or work methods and prohibiting new employment, and the selection of the dismissed party was in accordance with reasonable and fair standards, as well as to dismiss part of the employees after consultation with the labor party in good faith, such as recommending the party to resign with the understanding of the labor representative prior to the dismissal, if there was a reasonable ground for the dismissal.

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act

Redlele

Han-Samina Corporation

Daegu District Court of first instance (88Gahap233) Kimcheon Branch Court of the Supreme Court of Grade 8

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

In the first place, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 47,690,000 won with 25 percent interest per annum from February 12, 1988 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances and a declaration of provisional execution.

Preliminaryly, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s dismissal on December 31, 1987 against the Plaintiff is null and void.

From January 1, 1988, the defendant paid to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 366,666 won per month when the plaintiff is reinstated to the defendant company.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials, and provisional execution (the plaintiff has reduced the primary claim and expanded the conjunctive claim in the first and second trials) with respect to the above monetary payment.

1. There is no dispute between the parties as to the facts dismissed by the defendant company on December 31, 1987 when the plaintiff joined the defendant company on September 1, 197 and served as a leaf tobacco wholesaler.

2. The plaintiff's attorney asserts that the above dismissal measures against the plaintiff of the defendant company were null and void without any justifiable ground, and thus, he sought damages, such as the lost wages, etc. suffered by the plaintiff from the above dismissal against the defendant company, and the conjunctively sought ordinary wages from the day following the above dismissal to the day the plaintiff is reinstated. The defendant's attorney asserted that the above dismissal measures against the plaintiff of the defendant company were unfair since there were justifiable grounds.

그러므로 살피건대, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제11 내지 제13호증, 을 제20호증, 원심증인 이주형의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제1 내지 제6호증의 1,2, 원심증인 이해형의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제14호증, 을 제16 내지 제19호증의 각 기재와 위 증인들 및 당심증인 김달연의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고회사는 잎담배의 수매 및 가공수출을 목적으로 하는 회사로서 1977.4.11. 설립 이후 가공한 잎담배를 연평균 10,000톤 정도씩 미국, 영국, 독일 등지로 전량 수출하여 오던 중 1982년경부터 위 각 국가에서 금연운동이 활발하게 일어나 잎담배수요가 격감하면서 그 수출량도 1986년에는 6,300톤, 1987년에는 4,200톤으로 격감하였고 그후로도 계속 수출이 감소될 전망이고, 이와 함께 수출 시장여건의 변화에 따른 국내 잎담배경작농가의 감소로 인하여 피고회사가 한국전매공사로부터 수매한 잎담배량도 1986년에는 6,279,122킬로그램이었던 것이 1987년에는 4,216,584.5킬로그램으로 1년사이에 무려 2,062,537.5킬로그램이나 감소하였을 뿐 아니라 이 역시 앞으로 더욱 감소될 전망이며 더우기 수출잎담배대금의 결재통화인 미달러화에 대한 원화의 계속적인 평사절상과 노임상승으로 수출채산성과 대외경쟁력이 극도로 악화된 사실, 이에 피고회사는 경영합리화를 위한 대책으로 우선 1985.경부터 공장불가동시의 전기수용계약을 1,200킬로와트에서 300킬로와트로 대폭 감축변경하여 전기 사용료를 줄이고, 차량보유대수를 7대에서 3대로 줄이는 한편 별도로 기사를 채용하지 않고 기존 직원들로 하여금 스스로 운전을 하게 하고 그밖에 기계제골기 증설을 통한 생산성의 향상, 잎담배 수매, 포선방법의 합리화, 임차토지의 감량, 연료 및 부자재소비절약, 직원의 해외출장억제 등을 통한 행정비의 절감 등의 조치를 취하고, 피고회사의 기구 중 기획실, 관리실, 경리부를 경리부로 통합 조정하는 등 생산성 향상과 경비절감을 위한 많은 노력을 기울임과 아울러 1983년 이후로는 퇴직직원이 있어도 신규채용을 하지 않고 그 직무를 기존직원으로 하여금 겸임케 하였는데 전체 생산비 중 노임이 차지하는 비중이 57퍼센트에 달하는 인건비를 절약하지 아니하고서는 생산비를 효과적으로 절감시키는 방법이 달리 없다고 판단하고, 기존 고용직원을 차츰 정리하기고 하여 1984.8.30.에는 먼저 소외 반재범 등 고용직 직원 5명을, 1986.1.19.에는 소외 조아성등 임시직 직원 5명을 각 권고사직 시키기에 이르렀던 사실, 그러나 이러한 모든 노력에도 불구하고 1987년에 들어와서도 피고회사의 경영상태는 계속되는 잎담배 수출량의 격감과 원화평가절상으로 더욱 악화되어 그대로는 기업경영이 위태로울 지경에 이르자 부득이 피고회사는 1987.12.1. 피고회사의 노동조합장에게 개최일시를 같은 달 25. 정규사원 감원동의 요청을 그 안건으로 한 임시노사협의회 개최통보를 하고 위 통보에 따라 같은 달 25. 경영진과 노동조합측의 소외 김한덕 등 근로자 대표 5명이 참석한 가운데 임시노사협의회를 개최하고 이들에게 고용인원 약 10퍼센트의 감축의 불가피성을 설명하여 양해를 얻고, 감원방법으로서 감원인원수는 최소한으로 하고, 잎담배수매작업과정이 컴퓨터화 됨에 따라 수매원이 과잉상태가 되어 있는데다가 수매원의 작업이 연간 2,3개월에만 집중되고 나머지 기간은 경비 등 잡무에 배치되는 실정 등을 감안하여 잎담배수매부서를 주된 감원대상부서로 하되 대상자의 선정은 1986년과 1987년의 근무성적표상의 평점을 기준으로 하기로 방침을 정하고서 결국 피고회사 전직원 약 60명 중 위 두해동안의 근무성적이 가장 나쁜 원고와 소외 김종완, 조중오, 조순현 등 4명과 교통사고로 장기간 구속상태에 있던 소외 김성태 등 모두 5명을 감원대상자로 최종 선정하여 위 각자에게 그 사실을 통보하자 원고를 제외한 나머지 사람들은 이에 승복하고 사직한 사실, 한편 원고는 1986년과 1987년의 근무성적이 전직원 중 최하위였고, 같은 기간동안 원고가 수매한 잎담배의 단위당 수매비용이 다른 수매원들에 비하여 월등히 높았는데다가 1987.11.4.에는 피고회사의 미합중국인 감독관으로부터 원고가 예천수납장에서 수매한 잎담배의 품질이 불량하다는 주의를 받고서도 계속 수출할 수 없을 정도의 저질잎담배를 수매하여 트럭 밑바닥에 실어서 운반하였으며, 같은 해 11.19. 18:00경 예천수납장에서 잎담배를 수매하라는 지시를 받고서도 합리적인 이유없이 즉시 이를 이행하지 아니하여 피고회사의 잎담배 비수매기인 1987.5.18.부터 같은 해 10.18까지 5개월동안 경비실에서 근무하는 동안 겨우 61일만 출근하고 그 나머지는 결근하였으며, 출근한 날에도 화투를 치거나 잠을 자는 등 경비근무를 소홀히 한 사실이 있었던

F. The defendant company's dismissal under Article 34 of the Rules of Employment of the defendant company as to December 31, 1987 as to the plaintiff's refusal to comply with the above recommendation of resignation, and the defendant company's dismissal of the plaintiff is not sufficient to reverse the above recognition facts, and there is no other counter-proof. According to the above recognition, since the defendant company's dismissal of the defendant company's employees continued for a long period of time due to the decrease of leaf tobacco export volume at the time of the above dismissal and the deterioration of leaf tobacco export debt due to the increase in Korean currency value and wage increase, there was an urgent managerial necessity that should not be reduced for the company's existence, and there was considerable effort to avoid dismissal such as rationalizing management policies, work methods, prohibition of new employment, etc. before that dismissal, it seems that the selection of the party to dismissal was based on reasonable and fair criteria, and there was no reasonable ground to recognize the plaintiff's dismissal of the defendant company's dismissal as well as the plaintiff's dismissal recommendation as to the party who was the party to the dismissal prior to that dismissal was made.

3. As to this, the plaintiff company did not give a prior notice of dismissal under Article 27-2 of the Labor Standards Act before the dismissal of the plaintiff, and since the dismissal was not recognized by the Labor Relations Commission as to the plaintiff's causes attributable to the plaintiff, the above dismissal is null and void. Thus, the defendant company did not give a prior notice of dismissal 30 days before the dismissal of the plaintiff, and the defendant company did not give a prior notice of dismissal as to the plaintiff, although the defendant is still the time of dismissal, and the defendant company did not give a prior notice of dismissal as to the above witness's testimony as to the above witness's understanding type, the defendant company dismissed the plaintiff on December 31, 1987 and did not give a prior notice of dismissal, instead of giving a prior notice of dismissal 275,000 won, which is equivalent to the ordinary wage of the plaintiff at the time of 30 days, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's dismissal did not require a prior notice of dismissal, and therefore, the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's above dismissal procedure cannot be acknowledged otherwise.

In addition, the plaintiff's attorney argues that the failure of the defendant company to notify the plaintiff 30 days prior to the dismissal is null and void because it violates Article 34 of the collective agreement between the defendant company and its labor union, which provides that the defendant company's failure to notify the plaintiff 30 days prior to the dismissal, is in violation of subparagraph 17 of the above Eul and subparagraph 22 of the above witness Kim C's testimony, in full view of the whole purport of oral argument between the defendant company and its internal trade union, and the witness's testimony, Article 34 of the collective agreement which was concluded between the defendant company and its internal trade union at the time of the dismissal of the defendant company and its internal trade union, and Article 34 of the collective agreement which was in force at the time of the defendant company's transfer of the company or the provision of the procedure for layoff by mutual consultation at the latest 30 days prior to the dismissal of the defendant company, but it cannot be accepted even if the plaintiff company did not comply with the above provision of Article 30 days prior to the dismissal of the plaintiff company.

4. Accordingly, the defendant's dismissal against the plaintiff is justified as a dismissal, and the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim of this case, which are premised on the premise that the above dismissal was made without any justifiable reason, are all invalid, shall be dismissed without any further examination. Thus, the judgment below is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal and conjunctive claim extended to the trial court is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

Judge Seog-Un (Presiding Judge)