[1] Whether dismissal constitutes a case where a worker who has not expressed his/her intention to resign inevitably prepares and submits a written resignation (affirmative)

[2] The case where filing a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a dismissal after receiving a retirement allowance without an explicit objection to the dismissal does not go against the principle of good faith or the principle of non-competence

[1] Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 107 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da76229 decided Oct. 10, 2003 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da38686 decided Jan. 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 845) Supreme Court Decision 97Da12006 decided Aug. 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2859), Supreme Court Decision 200Da5199, 51926 decided Jan. 19, 2005 (Gong201Sang, 5199), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1076 decided Jun. 14, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1639 decided Apr. 29, 2009)

Park Jong-woo et al. (Law Firm Dasan, Attorneys Kim Li-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Both motor vehicles (Attorneys Lee Im-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na63493 delivered on May 26, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Whether the documents of resignation are submitted or dismissed;

Even if an employer receives a written resignation from an employee and concludes an employment contract by taking the form of dismissal from a member who accepts it, in cases where an employee who has no intention to resign prepares and submits a written resignation without any choice but to do so, it shall be deemed that the employment contract is terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da51919, 51926, Jan. 19, 2001; 2001Du11076, Jun. 14, 2002, etc.).

Based on the evidence of employment, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning with regard to the reasons why the plaintiffs submitted the written resignation, and found that the defendant unilaterally selected 58 persons including the plaintiffs (hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") to be subject to reduction of 10% of the number of employees as temporary measures for extension of the above agreement, under circumstances where the extension of the contract to improve the corporate structure is urgently needed. After that, the defendant unilaterally selected 58 persons including the plaintiffs to be subject to reduction of 10% of the number of employees as temporary measures for extension of the contract. The defendant continued to submit the written resignation by extending the time limit for the submission of the written resignation, and dismissed all the persons who did not submit the written resignation until the end, and did not submit the written resignation. In light of the above circumstances, the court below's determination that the defendant's voluntary resignation and resignation should not be justified in light of the legal principles as to the defendant's voluntary resignation from employment contract and there is no room for misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant's voluntary resignation from employment.

2. Whether the principles, etc. for the receipt and invalidation of retirement allowances are applied.

If an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any objection or condition at the time of receiving retirement allowances, it shall be deemed that the dismissal was effective, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of the dismissal after a long period of time has passed shall not be permitted in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of nopossing. However, even in such a case, in a case where there are objective circumstances that can be viewed as not recognizing the validity of the dismissal and there are other reasonable reasons to oppose such dismissal, such as the receipt of the retirement allowance under the circumstances where there is no explicit objection, it shall not be deemed that the dismissal was effective uniformly recognized even if the employee received the retirement allowance without reservation (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da51847, Mar. 8, 1996; 201Da76229, Oct. 10, 2003, etc.).

The court below determined as to the defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs' claim in this case cannot be permitted in accordance with the principle of good faith or the principle of invalidation. Since some of the workers dismissed immediately after the plaintiffs retired in the defendant company filed a lawsuit against the defendant or the legitimacy of layoff was disputed in the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs became a substantial party, the plaintiffs who have the same issues as the issues that the dismissed workers dispute, and immediately filed the lawsuit in this case after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered. The court of first instance was ruled that the plaintiffs' claim in this case merely because the plaintiffs received retirement consolation benefits for about four months and did not raise any objection for about two years, it is difficult to view that the lawsuit in this case goes against the principle of good faith or constitutes the principle of invalidation. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith or the principle of invalidation.

Furthermore, the lower court determined as follows: (a) it is difficult to view that there was an implied ratification solely on the fact that the Plaintiffs received retirement consolation benefits and two years have elapsed since the Plaintiffs did not withhold any objection or submit any condition at the time of receiving retirement benefits and retirement consolation benefits from the Defendant; and (b) determined as follows. In light of the circumstances revealed by the record, including the aforementioned circumstances duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was just in its determination, and there were no errors in matters of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to ratification of invalid acts, violation of the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding of facts due to insufficient deliberation, as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 2

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)