[1] Whether a party can voluntarily withdraw after the agreement on voluntary retirement (negative), and whether the effective date of voluntary retirement (=the scheduled date of voluntary retirement)

[2] The case holding that the obligation to pay the amount of the voluntary retirement, in case where an employer has accepted the written resignation, even though three months have passed since the written resignation was submitted in advance after three months after the written resignation, and the employer has withdrawn the written resignation in accordance with the above written resignation

[1] If a worker applies for the voluntary retirement, the worker shall terminate the employment relationship by agreement after examining the requirements of the employer and approving it. After such agreement is reached, one of the parties concerned may not withdraw his/her intent at will. If the scheduled date of the voluntary retirement comes under this agreement, the worker shall naturally retire and the employer shall be liable to pay the voluntary retirement.

[2] The case holding that the obligation to pay the honorary retirement money as originally agreed upon, in case where an employer has accepted the written resignation, even though three months have passed since the written resignation was submitted in advance and the intention of resignation was withdrawn by the above written resignation, when the employer had already withdrawn the written resignation

[1] Articles 105, 527, and 543 of the Civil Act; Article 30(1) of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Articles 105, 527, and 543 of the Civil Act; Article 30(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da42172 delivered on July 7, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1874) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da60890, 60906 Delivered on August 23, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2177)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney White-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na32792 delivered on November 29, 2002

The part of the judgment below against the defendant as to damages for delay exceeds the amount of 5% per annum from July 16, 1999 to May 31, 2003, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the plaintiff's appeal corresponding thereto is dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Judgment on the remainder other than damages for delay

Upon receipt of an application for voluntary retirement, an employer shall terminate the employment relationship by agreement after examining the requirements of the voluntary retirement, and after such agreement has been reached, one of the parties concerned shall not voluntarily withdraw his/her intent, and upon arrival of the scheduled date of voluntary retirement under this agreement, an employee shall naturally retire and bear the obligation to pay the voluntary retirement (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da42172, Jul. 7, 200; 200Da60890, 6096, Aug. 23, 2002, etc.).

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the records, while the defendant decided to retire at 20% of the total number of employees under the government restructuring policy on August 1, 1998, he recommended voluntary retirement or early retirement to the above employees. At the time of application for voluntary retirement or early retirement, six of the employees were selected by the defendant through a labor-management council as a result of comprehensively evaluating the situation of the worker's attitude, reprimand or disciplinary action, the opinion of the employees, general work style and English review results, etc., but the plaintiff was selected as the first-order person, and on September 7, 1998, one of the employees was additionally requested to retire, and the chief member was released from the same post office on April 13, 1999, and the defendant did not receive the remaining retirement allowance from the plaintiff 1 to the defendant for the same time as the retirement allowance of the plaintiff 4th time of his voluntary retirement.

In light of the above legal principles and the above facts, as long as the necessity of artificial reduction due to voluntary voluntary retirement, early retirement, etc. including retirement becomes extinct, even though the plaintiff was selected in the first order in the process of selecting a person subject to reduction of the number of years, the plaintiff, despite the right not to be forced to dismiss against his/her will, demanded the defendant to submit the resignation letter of this case written after three months after the date of preparation, was accepted by the defendant's proposal that he/she would promote the plaintiff as a chief member and pay the amount of voluntary retirement. Therefore, even if the resignation letter of this case does not contain any indication about voluntary retirement, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the defendant to voluntary retirement after three months. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff submitted an application for voluntary retirement to the defendant, or withdrawn his/her intention to resign by the resignation letter of this case without the defendant's acceptance, the plaintiff's unilateral intention or withdrawal of voluntary retirement cannot affect the plaintiff's voluntary retirement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thus, the defendant cannot accept the retirement certificate of this case under the premise that the plaintiff's voluntary retirement agreement.

The fact-finding and decision of the court below to the same purport are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on honorary retirement and trust rules.

2. Determination on damages for delay

On April 24, 2003, Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 2003) provides that "interest rate prescribed by Presidential Decree" in the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 6868 of May 10, 2003) was unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, the amended provision and the provision on statutory interest rate in the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17981 of May 29, 2003) shall be 20% per annum for a case pending the court at the time of the enforcement of the above Act. Thus, the court below erred by applying the above amended provision to the amount cited by the court below by applying the annual interest rate of 5% per annum until May 31, 2003.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant as to damages for delay of KRW 85,414,50 from July 16, 1999 to May 31, 2003 and the part against the defendant exceeding the amount of KRW 20 percent per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Since this part is sufficient for the court to directly judge, this part is to be left. The plaintiff's appeal corresponding to the above reversed part is dismissed, and the remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)