A. Whether the validity of the dismissal disposition is recognized after filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal, and receiving retirement allowances without raising an objection

(b) Whether it can be used as data to determine the legitimacy of dismissal for misconduct for which exemption is agreed or the period of prescription expires;

A. In a case where a worker has already filed a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal before receiving a retirement allowance, it cannot be deemed that the validity of the dismissal disposition was recognized on the ground that he did not raise any objection or condition in the receipt of the retirement allowance.

(b) even if exemption or disciplinary action has already been agreed or the statute of limitations has expired, it is not limited to the fact that such misconduct was committed as a result of the determination of disciplinary justice, and such work performance may also be considered as data to determine the legitimacy of the dismissal disposition.

(b) Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da8763 delivered on March 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1395) 93Da21736 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2925) 94Da15363 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1448), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4042 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2829)

Plaintiff

Sinsan bus Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 93Na3906 delivered on September 29, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

In a case where a worker has already filed a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal before receiving a retirement allowance, it cannot be deemed that the dismissal disposition was effective on the ground that he did not raise any objection or condition in the receipt of the retirement allowance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1873, Apr. 28, 1987; 90Da8763, Mar. 31, 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below holding to the same purport is without merit.

We also examine the remaining grounds for appeal.

According to the records, it is clear that the defendant did not take the plaintiff's work ability as the ground for disciplinary action of this case. On the other hand, even if the exemption agreement was reached or the period of prescription passed, it is not prohibited from taking such misconduct as the materials to determine disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4042 delivered on September 30, 1994). Thus, the plaintiff's work ability as above can be used as materials to determine the legitimacy of the dismissal disposition of this case. If the facts were to be duly established by the court below, even if the plaintiff's work ability is considered, it cannot be deemed that there is justifiable reason to take into account the plaintiff's work ability, and therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is justifiable in its conclusion, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for disciplinary action or the right to discretion disciplinary action which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)