The case holding that there was no false declaration of conspiracy in light of the circumstances, etc., where a worker, who received retirement allowances from a company which ceases to exist through the merger, and then retires in the future while entering the merged company, he received retirement allowances only on the basis of the period of service of the merged company.

The case holding that the case holding that in the process of the merger between Gap company and Eul company's employees to relieve Eul company's employees, the above employees' retirement allowance was paid on the basis of only the period from the date of entry into Gap company to the date of retirement when Gap company's employees retired from Gap company, and the retirement allowance was paid on the basis of the period from Gap company to the date of retirement when Gap company's employees entered Gap company to reduce the company's burden after the merger between Eul company's employees and Eul company's employees, and that in the case where both company's retirement allowance systems adopted a fractional system and received retirement allowance at the same time was favorable to workers under the economic circumstances at the time of the adoption of the fractional system, it cannot be deemed that Gap company and Eul company's employees as well as Eul company's intention to terminate the employment relationship by retiring Eul company's employees, and it cannot be deemed that there was a false declaration of intention that agreed to retire only in the form of agreement between Gap company and Eul.

Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 108(1) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1124 (Gong1988,882) and 90Da16801 decided May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1740) (Gong1740) and 90Da20398 decided May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1747)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na26732 delivered on March 15, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party joint venture company (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party joint venture company") was established through a joint investment by the defendant company and Japan around March 1975, but the competitiveness of the defendant company was lost due to the increase in the import liberalization policy of the non-party joint ventures and the cost burden due to the increase of electricity rates. The above Japanese company intended to collect the shares of the non-party company and to dispose of the non-party company to the non-party company for its dissolution and discontinuance of its business because it was anticipated that mass unemployment situation would result in improvement of the financial structure of the non-party company, and eventually, it would be possible to relieve the employees of the non-party company including the plaintiffs by absorbing the above non-party company from the point of view of the fact that the non-party joint venture company and the non-party joint venture company were established, and the court below did not accept the retirement allowance from the non-party company by submitting the above non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party employees's non-party company's non-party employees and its employees.

As to the ground of appeal Nos. 2 (1)

According to the court below's duly established decision, the defendant company's merger with the non-party company whose management balance is aggravated in order to relieve the employees of the non-party company. During this process, in order to reduce the burden of the defendant company after the merger with the employees of the non-party company, the above employees were to receive retirement allowances only based on the period from the employee of the non-party company to the retirement day to the retirement day when the employees of the defendant company were employed for the defendant company. The court below's decision on this point cannot be understood as a false declaration of intent that the plaintiffs agreed to retire only in the form of a mutual agreement with the non-party company and the employees of the non-party company, and the decision of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to voluntary declaration of intention as a juristic act by the plaintiffs.

As to the ground of appeal Nos. 2 (2)

If retirement allowances calculated based on the limited number of years of continuous employment do not meet the criteria prescribed in Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act as a result of the agreement on the restriction of the number of years of continuous employment between the employer and the employee, the agreement on the calculation of the amount of retirement allowances shall be deemed null and void. However, as seen above, since the labor relationship between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company in this case was severed due to retirement of the Plaintiffs, the argument on the lawsuit on the premise that the labor relationship between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company continued without any interruption of the labor relationship between the Plaintiffs and the non-party company cannot be accepted without any need for further review.

Therefore, the plaintiff's 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.