(a) Whether the provisions of the proviso of Article 36(1) of the Regulations on the Personnel Management of Korea Telecommunication Corporation, which set the exchange series of work and the retirement age for occupation at 43 years, violate Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act

(b) The case that reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an incomplete hearing or insufficient reasons

A. The discriminatory treatment between men and women under Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the unfair discrimination between men and women on the ground that they are either men or women without any reasonable reason. Thus, if the content of the proviso of Article 36(1) of the Personnel Regulations of the Korea Telecommunication Corporation, which sets the retirement age in the exchange occupational category at 43 years of age, sets the retirement age unfairly lower for female workers to retire early without any reasonable reason, it shall be deemed null and void as it falls under the prohibition of gender discrimination under

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of not examining and determining specifically whether the exchanged occupational category is a female-only occupational category and the reasons why the retirement age was lower than that of other occupational categories in determining whether Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act is violated

A. Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Lee Tae-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the Korea Telecommunication Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na3100 delivered on February 15, 1985

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held the above-mentioned retirement age of 1961.6.1, and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 1982.1,000 members of the labor union and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 300,000,000 won and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 13.4,000 won and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 10,000 won and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 3.4,000 won and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 15,00 won and held the above-mentioned retirement age of 3.0,000 won and held that the above-mentioned retirement age of 1,000 won and the above-mentioned retirement age of 1,000 won were transferred to the defendant Corporation. As a result, the court below held that the above-mentioned retirement age of 3,000 won and the above-mentioned retirement age of 1,000 won was changed to 43.

However, Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that the rules of employment shall not be against the law, and Article 5 of the same Act provides that an employer shall not discriminate against workers on the basis of gender, and shall not discriminate against the working conditions on the ground of nationality, religion, or social status. The discriminatory treatment between men and women under the above Article 97(1) of the Labor Standards Act refers to unfair discrimination between men and women on the ground that they are either men or women without reasonable grounds. Thus, if the contents of the proviso of Article 36(1) of the above Regulations, which can be said to be the rules of employment of Defendant Corporation, provide unreasonable discrimination just because they

In the instant case, the lower court’s determination of the retirement age for the entire workers of the specific occupational category called exchange occupational category is 43 years, and the employment of female workers in the exchange occupational category is not limited only by women, and there is actually three male workers. However, even if the exchange employment of the Defendant Corporation has been traditionally appropriated for female workers, there were about 4,800 male workers in the exchange occupational category around the time of enactment of the above personnel regulations, and even if the number of female workers increased by 7,480, there is room to view that the above three workers were able to be employed at the lower level without any reasonable reason. Accordingly, it is clear in the record that there was a lack of working age for female workers in the exchange occupational category as seen above, it is difficult to consider whether the above 3 workers were employed at lower level or not, without any justifiable reason, whether the female workers meet the retirement age for all women workers of this case, such as the situation where the above 3 workers were employed at lower level and the future employment trend of female workers of this case, and thus, it is difficult to consider whether the above female workers are ordinarily employed occupational category.

If so, the court below should have deliberated and judged specifically on whether the exchange job category is a female-only job category and the reasons why the retirement age was remarkably lower than that of other job categories. However, the court below should have determined the retirement age of three male workers at the past 43 years from the fact that the exchange job category was open to both men and women, and that the retirement age of three male workers was set at the past 43 years from the past. The proviso of Article 36 (1) of the above personnel regulations set the retirement age of the exchange job by taking into account the characteristics of the exchange job category, the characteristics of the worker's supply and demand of workers, etc., and the circumstances of the defendant corporation and its employees. As a result of these regulations, the court below determined that the above proviso of Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act was null and void because the retirement age of the exchange job category, which the majority of women in reality, was 43 years at the age of 43, and therefore, it is clear that the judgment affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes the ground for reversal of Article 12

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)