[1] Whether res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment affects the existence of a claim until the period included in the text of the final and conclusive judgment where the performance of a performance obligation is ordered within the period following the closing of argument (affirmative in principle)

[2] In a case where the interpretation of the intent of a party expressed in a disposition document is at issue, the method of interpreting the disposition document and whether a collective agreement can interpret the explicit provision disadvantageous to an employee (negative)

[3] In a case where the interpretation of the provisions of the collective agreement entered into between Company A and the trade union that “an additional payment of 100% of the average wage, as well as the wage that ought to be received as a matter of course at the time of attendance,” is at issue, the case holding that the “10% of the average wage” to be paid at the time of payment of unpaid wages means the wages that had not been paid over the whole period from the time of dismissal to the retirement from office due to unfair dismissal, etc.

[1] A final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect as to the contents included in the text, and even if a claim is required to be filed in advance based on the time of closing of argument, a lawsuit for future performance may be brought. As such, insofar as a performance order is given by the deadline following the closing of argument in the text of the performance judgment, res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment shall affect the existence of a claim for payment until the period included in the text of the judgment. However, in a case where a final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of fixed-term funds to the time of maturity becomes final and conclusive, and where special circumstances arise that significantly undermine equity between the parties as the circumstances forming the basis for calculating the amount clearly changed after the closing of argument in the fact-finding proceedings, the same evaluation as those of a partial claim in

[2] The objective interpretation of a disposition document is that the parties expressed their intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, barring any special circumstances, if the authenticity is acknowledged. However, in the event that there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. Meanwhile, when interpreting a disposition document, such as a collective agreement, is performed through collective bargaining between the labor union and the employer as an independent organization of workers for the purpose of maintaining and improving workers’ working

[3] In a case where the interpretation of the provisions of the collective agreement entered into between Company A and the trade union that "the amount of unpaid wages shall be paid by adding 100% of average wages as well as wages that should be naturally paid at the time of attendance," is at issue, the case holding that the "10% of average wages" paid at the time of payment of unpaid wages shall be deemed to mean wages that have not been paid over the whole period from the date of dismissal to the date of their original work, in light of the following: (a) details and form of the provision on additional compensation; (b) details and process of introduction; (c) the purpose to be achieved by both sides under the above provision; (d) the purpose to prevent unjust disciplinary actions against Company A; and (e) the purpose of indirectly compelling the worker to return to their original work when it is found that the disciplinary action is unfair

[1] Articles 216 and 251 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 105 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da58194 delivered on March 9, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 626) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7249 Delivered on May 10, 2007

Plaintiff (Law Firm Ko et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai U.S.C. (Law Firm Samsung, Attorney Park Chang-joon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2009Na1313 decided Nov. 18, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding the claim for additional compensation is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan High Court. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for unpaid wages

A final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect as to the contents of the judgment including the text, and even if a claim that becomes due based on the time of closing of argument is required to be filed in advance, a lawsuit for future performance may be brought. As such, once a performance order is given in the text of the performance judgment to perform the duty of payment within the period following the closing of argument, res judicata effect as to the existence of the right to claim up to the period included in the text of the judgment. However, in a case where a final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of the fixed fund up to the date of maturity of the future performance becomes final and conclusive, and where special circumstances arise that significantly undermine equity between the parties as a result of clearly changing the situation forming the basis for calculating the amount after the closing of argument at the fact-finding court in the previous suit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous suit shall not extend to the difference (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da58194, Mar

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of all the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the court below held that it is difficult to evaluate the Plaintiff’s claim as a result of changes in circumstances to the extent that it could not have been predicted or expected in the previous suit after the closing of argument in the fact-finding court, which would lead to a social evaluation that if the Plaintiff does not correct it, it would go against the fair concept between the parties, even if it does not correct the res judicata. The court below held that the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the wage increase amounting to 44,22,224 won after November 21, 201, which is the date of the closing of argument in the previous suit, cannot be accepted as it goes against the res judicata effect of the final judgment in the previous suit.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of res judicata as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the claim for additional compensation

If the authenticity of a disposition document is acknowledged, it shall be objectively interpreted that the parties expressed their intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, barring any special circumstances. However, in the event that there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. Meanwhile, in interpreting a disposition document, such as a collective agreement, the collective agreement is formed through collective bargaining between the autonomous organization of workers and the employer for the purpose of maintaining and improving workers’ working conditions and enhancing their economic and social status by promoting their welfare (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da7249, May 10, 2007). Thus,

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the main text of Article 46 subparagraph 2 of the collective agreement between the defendant and his trade union provides that "the amount of unpaid wages shall be paid in addition to 100% of average wages as well as wages that should be naturally paid at the time of work." In light of the contents and form of the above additional compensation provision, the process and revision process thereof, the purpose of the defendant's achievement under the above provision, especially the above additional compensation provision indirectly aims to restrain the defendant's unfair disciplinary action, and to indirectly enforce the worker's prompt return to his work when the disciplinary action is found to be unfair, the above "10% of average wages" which was paid at the time of payment of unpaid wages refers to wages which were not paid over the whole period from the time of dismissal, etc. to his original work (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72249, May 10, 207).

Nevertheless, in different opinions, the lower court determined that the “100% of the average wage” under the main sentence of Article 46 subparag. 2 of the instant collective agreement means only the average wage for one month, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for additional compensation. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the provisions of the instant collective agreement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal assigning

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the claim for additional compensation is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)