[1] The meaning of urgent managerial necessity and efforts to avoid dismissal among the requirements for layoffs

[2] The case holding that a reorganization dismissal measure is null and void on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the reduction of the number of employees as part of a reorganization dismissal is reasonable objectively and that it is difficult to consider it as well as efforts

[1] Imminent managerial necessity among the requirements for layoff is not limited to cases where it is necessary to avoid corporate bankruptcy, but includes cases where it is necessary to reduce the number of employees in order to cope with future crisis, but such reduction is objectively recognized as reasonable. Of the requirements for layoff, efforts to avoid dismissal refer to the rationalization of management policies or work methods, prohibition of new employment, utilization of temporary leave and voluntary retirement and transfer of employees, etc. It means that all possible measures are taken by an employer to minimize the scope of dismissal. The method and degree of such measures vary depending on the degree of the management crisis of the relevant employer, the managerial reasons for which the layoff should be conducted, the contents and scale of the business, the number of employees by class, etc.

[2] The case holding that a reorganization dismissal measure is null and void on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the reduction of the number of employees made as part of a reorganization dismissal is rational from an objective point of view and that it is difficult to consider

[1] Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da14779 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 556), Supreme Court Decision 94Da52119 delivered on December 22, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 480), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8031 delivered on September 5, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3116), Supreme Court Decision 99Du202 delivered on April 27, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1074), Supreme Court Decision 9Du1809 delivered on May 11, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1171), Supreme Court Decision 200Du32939 delivered on July 29, 2002 (Gong199Sang, 209Ha2938 delivered on July 29, 2005)

Jeonbuk Bank (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Lee Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu18373 delivered on August 28, 2003

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

1. The urgent managerial necessity among the requirements for layoff is not necessarily limited to the case of avoiding the bankruptcy of a company, and includes the case where personnel reduction is required to cope with the future crisis, but such reduction of personnel should be recognized as reasonable from an objective perspective (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29452, Jul. 9, 2002, etc.). In addition, it means that the employer has to make every effort to avoid dismissal, among the requirements for layoff, including the rationalization of management policy or work methods, prohibition of new employment, utilization of temporary leave and voluntary retirement, and transfer of employment, and that the employer has to take all possible measures to minimize the scope of dismissal (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da14779, Dec. 22, 192; 9Du202, Apr. 27, 199); the method and degree thereof vary depending on the number of employees of the employer in question, the scale and degree of management crisis in question; and (see Supreme Court Decision 201Du2540, Apr. 27, 1999>

2. According to the records, the plaintiff and its labor union established 20 billion won or more after March 15, 201 that affected the improvement of the number of the above 200 million won and prepared 20 billion won agreement for the collective bargaining conference regarding the restructuring of human resources in 201 to overcome this urgent situation, and to establish a foundation for independent life, and agreed 30 or less members, 45 or more, and the plaintiff agreed on the selection criteria and promotion schedule of 20 billion won for the above 200 billion won and 200 billion won for the above 10-year waiting for promotion to 200 million won and 30.4 billion won for the above 20-year waiting for promotion to the above 20-year waiting for promotion to the above 10-year waiting for the 20-year waiting for promotion to the above 20-year waiting for promotion to the 20-year waiting for promotion to the 20-year waiting for retirement.

In light of the above circumstances, at the time of September 26, 2001, when the Plaintiff took the instant measure to dismiss the Intervenor, the number of the voluntary retirees by efforts to avoid the Plaintiff’s dismissal was already superior to the overall goal of the human resources restructuring, and the Plaintiff’s management status was also improved. In addition, the Plaintiff’s management status was also improved. In particular, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s additional measures to reduce the number of 12 out of class 3 or higher employees of class 3 or higher, as a result, reduced by 26 or new employment of 26 or 18 employees. In full view of the fact that the Intervenor was selected as Grade 18 from among class 3 or higher employees, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s additional measures to reduce the number of employees by means of the Intervenor’s efforts to avoid the dismissal, and it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s efforts to avoid the dismissal were made.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the reorganization dismissal in this case was null and void because it did not meet its requirements is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles, or incomplete hearing as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 1, and since the reorganization dismissal in this case did not meet its requirements on the grounds as seen earlier, even if the criteria applied by the plaintiff to select the intervenor, etc. as a person subject to recommendation for voluntary retirement are reasonable and fair, the above conclusion cannot be affected and therefore

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)