A. The meaning of the rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act

(b) Whether the exemption period of the worker from the obligation to pay overseas training expenses is reduced in favor of the worker, pursuant to the personnel regulations amended;

A. The rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the employment rules that the employer applies to all workers of the business in question, such as the worker's service regulations and wages, and it does not necessarily refer to the name of the employer.

B. The compulsory service period that, if the personnel regulations were revised more favorable to the employee at the time of his retirement, the employee who had yet to be exempted from the obligation to repay the expenses for overseas training of the employee for whom the exemption period is in progress shall be subject to the revised personnel regulations, unless there is a separate provision excluding retroactive application.

A. Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da30828 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1161) 93Da27413 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1173)

Kuyang Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na54151 delivered on May 27, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The rules of employment under Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the provision that an employer stipulates the rules of working conditions applicable to all workers of the business in question, such as the worker's service discipline and wages, and it does not necessarily refer to the name of the employer (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da30828 delivered on February 28, 192).

2. According to the facts established by the court below, the personnel regulations of the plaintiff company provide for promotion (including promotion), retirement, dismissal, and other matters to be applied to all workers of the workplace concerned, which are the contents to be stipulated in the rules of employment under the Labor Standards Act. The personnel regulations of the plaintiff company and the defendant 1, which were enforced on November 7, 198 when the agreement of this case concerning overseas training between the plaintiff company and the defendant 1 was concluded, were enforced on November 7, 198 (hereinafter referred to as the "pre-amended personnel regulations"), shall be exempted from the repayment of the cost of overseas training and shall be exempted from the payment of the cost of compulsory service for five years after the expiration of the period of overseas training. The plaintiff company's personnel regulations, which were enforced on July 22, 191 (hereinafter referred to as the "the revised personnel regulations"), which were enforced on July 22, 191 at the time of retirement, are the same as those of the plaintiff company's employment regulations concerning the plaintiff company's wages. Thus, the above personnel regulations of the plaintiff company shall not be accepted.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

1. According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant 1 was dispatched by the plaintiff company to Germany from November 13, 198 to May 15, 198, and received overseas training from the Haurbbee Shipbuilding. The defendant borrowed expenses incurred by the same defendant between the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company on November 7, 198, prior to Germany, from the plaintiff company. After completing the training, the defendant completed his return to the plaintiff company and returned to the plaintiff company, and continues to work until February 28, 2001 for a fixed period of time, the defendant shall be exempted from the liability for repayment of the above loan, but if he retires from his office, he shall return the above loan to the plaintiff company, but he shall also resign from the contract of this case on July 22, 191.

2. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the instant agreement setting the Defendant’s compulsory service period up to February 28, 2001 is a labor contract that sets the terms and conditions of employment unfavorable to workers beyond the standard stipulated in the former employment rules, which was in force at the time of the agreement, and thus, the part exceeding the standard of the former personnel regulations shall be deemed null and void. If the above personnel regulations were revised more favorable to the Defendant at the time of his retirement, the compulsory service period for which the Defendant is exempt from the obligation to pay overseas training expenses should be in accordance with the revised personnel regulations, and thus, the lower court’

3. The argument points out that the compulsory service period of the same defendant is valid only for five years prior to the revision of the former Personnel Regulations, which had been in force at the time of the execution of the contract in this case, since the compulsory service period is fixed five years at this time, even if the new personnel regulations were amended and the new personnel regulations were reduced, the revised personnel regulations only apply to the overseas training after its enforcement, and they cannot be applied to the overseas training already conducted and they cannot affect the final compulsory service period. However, unless there is a separate provision excluding retroactive application of the revised personnel regulations, the revised personnel regulations in favor of the newly amended personnel regulations shall be deemed to apply to the compulsory service period of the overseas trainee whose period of exemption is still in force at

There is no reason for this issue.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)