[1] The meaning of "the truth" in an expression of intention which is not the truth, and whether it constitutes a true expression of intention in a case where the expression of intention is judged to be the best, but the expression of intention is made (negative)

[2] The legal nature of the application for voluntary retirement, and whether an employee may withdraw his/her intent at his/her own discretion before the employer gives his/her consent after applying for voluntary retirement (affirmative)

[1] "Voluntary intention" in a declaration of intention, which is not an truth, refers to the idea of the speaker who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the speaker is true and correct, so even if the speaker did not bring the content of his/her expression in a true mind, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intention, which lacks the intention of internal deliberation, in the current situation where it is judged that it is best and the content of his/her expression of intention was expressed in a correct manner.

[2] An application for the voluntary retirement is that a worker terminates a labor relationship by an agreement after examining the requirements of the employer and approving the application. An application for the voluntary retirement is merely an offer for termination of an agreement on the labor contract, and thus, a worker may withdraw his/her intent of offer at his/her own discretion before the employment contract is terminated due to the consent of the employer.

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105, 527, 543, and 660 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16059 decided Dec. 20, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 402) Supreme Court Decision 99Da34475 decided Apr. 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1260) Supreme Court Decision 200Da51919, 51926 decided Jan. 19, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 519) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da42172 decided Jul. 7, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1874) (Gong200Da60890, 60906 decided Aug. 23, 2002)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Kim Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na51423 delivered on January 22, 2002

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As to the second ground for appeal

'Voluntary intention' in a declaration of intention, which is not a true intention, refers to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not refer to the matter in the genuine mind. Thus, even if the speaker did not appear in the genuine mind of the content of his/her expression of intention, it cannot be deemed to be the true declaration of intention, not the lack of the intention of internal effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da3475, Apr. 25, 200; 200Da51919, 51926, Jan. 19, 200).

The court below determined on January 1, 199 to set the criteria for selecting persons subject to circular leave when deciding to implement the circulative leave system along with the voluntary retirement system as part of the restructuring of human resources. The court below determined that the submission of the resignation of this case to the effect that the plaintiff who was selected as the person subject to circular leave falls under the above criteria is the best for the voluntary retirement of this case on January 15, 1999 by running the above voluntary retirement system and the circular leave system.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the declaration of intention of retirement, not the truth-finding, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Ground of appeal No. 1

The court below held on January 22, 199 of the same year, where the plaintiff submitted a resignation application to the defendant on January 15, 1999, and the defendant voluntarily withdrawn his/her intention on the part of the plaintiff before notifying the personnel order to dismiss the plaintiff, but on the premise that the expression of intention to resign is a cancellation notice, barring any special circumstances, considering the contents of the private employee in this case as indicated in the pleading, the motive and circumstance for the preparation and submission of the private employee, the motive and circumstance for the withdrawal of the declaration of intention to resign, and other various circumstances, the submission of the above private employee in this case is not deemed to have been notified of the termination of the labor contract in principle, and in such a case, as long as the declaration of intention to resign has been delivered to the defendant, the court below determined that the plaintiff cannot withdraw his/her intention to resign even before the expiration of the period as stipulated in Article 660(3) of the Civil Act without the defendant's consent.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

In light of the records, even if the Defendant selected a certain person as a part of the restructuring order and applied for the voluntary retirement, it was internal determination that all of them were acceptable, externally, the Defendant could apply for the voluntary retirement to all of the workers with certain work experience, and notified the relevant workers of the policy to determine the persons disqualified for the voluntary retirement through a resolution of the high school personnel committee, and then the Plaintiff received the application for the voluntary retirement. In such a case, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted the instant resignation statement stating that the Plaintiff would be selected as the person eligible for the voluntary retirement and that the remaining employees would not be reinstated after the expiration of the period of the voluntary retirement, and that the Plaintiff would be allowed to request the voluntary retirement to the above voluntary retirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du800, supra). After the application for the voluntary retirement was completed, the Defendant’s application for the aforementioned voluntary retirement order to include the Plaintiff’s remaining employees who were subject to the voluntary retirement in the agreement to the voluntary retirement order in 70 days before the expiration of the period of the voluntary retirement order.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the plaintiff's application for voluntary retirement by the resignation of this case is not an offer for termination of an agreement on a labor contract, and it cannot be withdrawn after the plaintiff reached the defendant's intent. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal nature of the application for voluntary retirement and the legal principles on the withdrawal of the intention, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

Supreme Court Decision 99Du8657 Decided September 5, 2000 cited by the court below is not appropriate to invoke the issue of this case as it concerns general submission of private staff, not voluntary retirement.

2. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)