(a) Validity of the rules of employment formulated and amended without consent by the collective decision-making method of a workers group;

(b) The case holding that the grounds for amending the rules on remuneration are unreasonable by social norms instead of the consent of the worker group;

A. When the formulation or revision of the rules of employment under Article 95(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4099, Mar. 29, 1989) imposes unfavorable working conditions by depriving workers of their rights or interests, the consent must be obtained through collective decision-making by the workers group to which the previous rules of employment or the rules of employment are applied, and the rules of employment prepared and revised without such consent shall not be valid unless it is recognized that it is reasonable by social norms.

B. The case holding that even if the wage regulation was amended to normalize the operation of all state-owned enterprises at the time of the amendment of the remuneration regulation, and the ○○○○ Association, an employer-invested association, also was also amended to rationalize the management under the direction of the government supervisory organ, such a reason alone cannot be deemed reasonable by social norms as it does not require the employee group's consent.

Article 95(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4099 of March 29, 1989)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da49324 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 863) 92Da20309 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1409) 93Da28492 delivered on July 29, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2232). Supreme Court Decision 92Da3978 delivered on January 15, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 710) 93Da17898 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2606) b.92Da45490 delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2606).

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

○○ Association of Korea (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na29015 delivered on April 8, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In a case where working conditions are imposed by depriving an employee of his rights or interests in the acquisition or change of the rules of employment under Article 95(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4099 of Mar. 29, 1989), it is the opinion of the party members established that the agreement is required by the collective decision-making method of a labor group to which the previous conditions of employment or the rules of employment had been applied, and that the revised rules of employment, without such consent, has no effect unless it is deemed reasonable by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da17898, Aug. 24, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da49324, Jan. 26, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 92Da39778, Jan. 15, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on macroficial evidence, that the defendant corporation was merely subject to deliberation and resolution by the board of directors as a procedure for modification of the regulations, while revising the regulations on remuneration for each subordinate adjustment on August 28, 1979 and December 27, 1980, as stated in its reasoning, and did not seek a consent of the employees belonging to the defendant corporation by the collective decision-making method, although it did not seek a consent of the employees belonging to the defendant corporation, the amendment of the regulations on remuneration of this case was null and void without the consent of the employees who were subject to the regulations at the time, compared with related evidence records, the court below's fact-finding and decision is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the method of consent of the employees in violation of the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the method of consent of the employees in relation to the amendment of the working conditions.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the records of this case, the collective agreement concluded on March 5, 1991 between the defendant corporation and the labor union established by the participation of a majority of workers belonging to the defendant corporation from March 9, 198 after the amendment of the compensation provision of this case, which was made on March 5, 1991 by the defendant corporation, shall be governed by the corresponding provisions of the defendant corporation (Articles 23 through 27 of the collective agreement, and Article 5 of the Addenda). However, there is no provision about retirement allowances, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the collective agreement provides that "working conditions not specified in this agreement shall be determined through mutual consultation in accordance with related Acts and subordinate statutes". Thus, it shall not be deemed that the above trade union ratified the provision of this case which was invalid at the time of conclusion of the collective agreement.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to ratification of working conditions, as in the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

On the third ground for appeal

Even if the payment provision was amended to normalize the operation of all state-owned enterprises at the time of the amendment of the provision on the remuneration of this case, and the defendant corporation also made the amendment of this case to rationalize the management under the direction of the government supervisory organ for the sake of the management rationalization in the situation where financial difficulties are lacking, such a reason alone cannot be deemed reasonable in terms of social norms that does not require the consent of the employee group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da49324, Jan. 26, 1993; 92Da45490, Sept. 14, 1993; 92Da45490, Apr. 12, 1994; 92Da20309, Apr. 12, 1994). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error as the theory of

On the fourth ground

Upon examining the records of this case, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have consented individually to the amendment of the remuneration provision of this case, and even if the plaintiff paid the amount calculated by the revised provision as retirement allowance of the retired employee, and the plaintiff did not withhold any objection at the time of receiving retirement allowance, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of the good faith principle unless the revised remuneration provision is effective. The court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. We also

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)