(a) Whether the effect of retirement has occurred, in case where a worker submits a resignation and handles the retirement and immediately re-instigates the retirement;

(b) The effects of the rules of employment where the rules concerning retirement allowances are modified disadvantageous to workers than those of the existing workers;

A. In a case where a worker submitted a resignation in accordance with the company's management policy and received the company's acceptance of the retirement disposition and continued to work without the division of substantial labor relations after the retirement, it shall be reasonable to view that the submission of such employee was aware that the worker's intention to resign was expressed without the intention to retire, and that the company which caused the worker to submit the resignation on the premise of the intention to retire also did not have such intention. Therefore, the effect of the submission of the above private employee and the retirement due to the retirement disposition shall not arise.

B. The employer’s amendment of the rules of employment to the rules of employment which form the content of the working conditions under the rules of employment to workers more unfavorable than that of the existing rules of employment constitutes an unfavorable amendment to the rules of employment that is unreasonable, and such unfavorable amendment to the rules of employment cannot have the effect of the amendment to the rules of employment as long as there is no consent from the collective decision-making method of the employee group to which

A. Article 107(a) of the Civil Act; (b) Articles 28 and 98 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da1124 delivered on April 25, 198, Supreme Court Decision 77Da355 delivered on July 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 77Da681 delivered on September 28, 197, Supreme Court Decision 77Da1378 delivered on December 27, 197

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Park Byung-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na878 delivered on September 14, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

If a worker submitted a resignation in accordance with the management policy of the company and received the company's acceptance of it and continued to work without the interruption of substantial labor relations after the worker's retirement, it shall be reasonable to view that the worker was aware that it constitutes an indication of his intention of retirement, and that the company which caused the worker to submit a resignation under the premise of the intention of retirement was not the same intention. Therefore, the effect of the submission of the above private employee and the retirement due to the disposition of retirement shall not arise.

Therefore, the court below, based on its evidence, demanded that the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and the deceased non-party, etc. work as the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and the plaintiff et al. as the land-won worker of the defendant company, submit a resignation on the premise that the defendant company will re-enter the defendant company on December 1, 1971, and accordingly, it was disposed of December 31 of the same year, and therefore, the plaintiff et al. were re-employed on January 1, 1972 and continued to work without changing the contents of work or position before and after the above retirement, and thereafter, the fact that the above workers such as the plaintiff et al. were calculating the continuous service period on the basis of the first date of employment as before and after the above determination was just and there was no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the reasons for appeal, etc., as alleged.

In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff et al. asserted that the submission of the above employees was made by coercion without the intention of retirement, and the court below's explanation that the purport of the submission was to be invalid by a false declaration of intention. As such, it cannot be said that such measures of the court below exceed the limit of the principle of pleading and the exercise of the right of explanation. The precedents inside the country are not appropriate in this case.

The assertion is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

It is a party member's view that the employer's amendment of the rules of employment to the rules of employment, which forms the contents of the working conditions of the existing rules of employment, to the disadvantage of the workers rather than that of the existing rules of employment, constitutes an unfavorable amendment to the rules of employment that is unreasonable, and that such amendment to the rules of employment cannot be effective unless there is consent from the collective decision-making method of a group of workers subject to the existing rules of employment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da355, Jul. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 77Da681, Sept. 28, 197; Supreme Court Decision 77Da1378, Dec. 27, 197; etc.) and that it is not necessary for the party member to change this opinion.

Therefore, according to the above opinion of the court below, in the existing employment rules, the defendant company has a retirement allowance system under which the amount calculated by multiplying the average wage of one month at the time of retirement by the number of years of service as retirement allowance by the number of years of service, which the defendant company paid as retirement allowance. The change to the simple payment system under which only one-month average wage is paid for one year of service as to the changes in the employment rules constitutes an unfavorable change to the employment rules which are unilaterally unfavorable to the workers, and without consent by the method of collective decision-making of the group of workers, the change cannot be effective as an amendment to the employment rules, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the changes in the employment rules as asserted.

The Supreme Court Decision pointing out party members (Law No. 78Da1046 delivered on September 12, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 77Da355 delivered on July 26, 197, etc.) is related to cases where the contents of revised rules of employment are reasonable and it cannot be seen as unilaterally disadvantageous to workers, and therefore, it is not appropriate in this case.

The assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)