Retirement and re-admission due to merger, and whether the employment relationship is terminated or not.

[1] Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act

door-to-door et al.

Jeonbuk-gu Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeonnam-nam General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Sung-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Decision 200Na4503 delivered on May 31, 2001

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

1. In the comprehensive succession of a labor relationship, if an employee submitted a resignation document and received a retirement allowance by his/her own employee, it can be deemed that he/she consented to the division of the continued labor. However, if it is not by the employee's arbitrary consent, but by the unilateral decision of the company's management policy, it merely goes through the form of retirement and re-employment, it cannot be deemed that the employee had an intent to discontinue the labor relationship or agreed to the division of the continued labor even if he/she received the retirement allowance through such form, and therefore, the continued labor relationship is not interrupted (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da18353, Jun. 11, 199, etc.).

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiffs retired from office in accordance with the non-party company's policy and received retirement allowances and special bonuses of 100% from the non-party company on March 30, 1978, and that the non-party company was merged with the non-party company's transfer to the non-party North Korean passenger transport company (the name of the defendant company on June 27, 1994) on April 1, 197, and retired from office on December 31, 1997. As the non-party company was merged with the non-party company's transfer to the non-party company, the non-party company's transfer to the non-party company (the non-party company's transfer to the name of the defendant company), the non-party company's transfer to the above North Korean passenger transport company and all workers working in the non-party company including the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive retirement allowances from the non-party company's employees in violation of the law of free employment.

The grounds of appeal are not appropriate to invoke this case, since the Supreme Court's decision differs from the case.

2. Furthermore, 66 of the 72 employees of the non-party company at the time of the above merger retired from office, but the remaining retirees except the plaintiffs did not raise any objection to the payment of retirement allowances of the defendant company or the calculation of the number of years of continuous service of the defendant company. The plaintiff door door-gu also paid retirement allowances on the basis of only the period of continuous service of the defendant company whenever the employees of the non-party company were retired from office at the time of the defendant company's general secretary-general. However, the plaintiffs' assertion in the grounds of appeal that the plaintiffs' filing of the lawsuit in this case after the lapse of 20 years after the retirement of the non-party company was in violation of the principle of good faith or the principle of prohibition against speech cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below, and the above circumstance alone does not violate the principle of good faith or the principle of prohibition

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)