[1] The scope of the employer's exercise of the right to review and determine the employee's application for voluntary retirement

[2] The case holding that in light of the company's personnel regulations, etc., it cannot be said that there was abuse of authority in the examination and decision of the application for voluntary retirement in order to reject the application for voluntary retirement of workers by interpreting that the period of business service of workers is not included in the period of service

[1] Barring special circumstances, such as where the rules of employment of a company stipulate that a worker who has qualifications for application for the voluntary retirement is to take place only with the application of the worker who has qualifications for the voluntary retirement, the right to review and decide on whether to accept the application for the voluntary retirement is reserved to the employer. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the employer’s right to review and decide whether to accept the application for the voluntary retirement has been reserved to the employer. However, the employer’s right to review and decide as to the application for the voluntary retirement should be exercised within a reasonable scope, and it shall not be abused by denying the application for the voluntary retirement of a worker who has objective qualifications, on the ground of unfair reasons.

[2] The case holding that in light of the fact that the personnel regulations of a company whose tenure of office is not less than 20 years and whose remaining retirement age is not less than one year, the term "period of employment" means the actual period of employment after appointment, and the term "election" means new employment, etc., it cannot be deemed that there is abuse of authority in examining and determining an application for the voluntary retirement of a worker, and in light of the fact that it is reasonable to view that the term "election" under the personnel regulations means new employment, etc., the term "election" means being newly employed as an employee of a company," the company cannot be deemed as being included

[1] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 96 of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da42933 delivered on December 21, 1999 (Gong2000Sang, 276)

[Judgment of the court below]

Road Traffic Safety Authority (Law Firm Affiliated, Attorney Song In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 3, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay 63,99,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Return of an application for voluntary retirement and retirement of the plaintiff;

On December 21, 1984, the Plaintiff was ordinarily employed by the Defendant and was appointed as a temporary employee by contract renewal. On September 21, 1990, the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement around February 2005 (the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement at the same time) while he was appointed as a technical employee (the Plaintiff applied for voluntary retirement at the same time). On February 28, 2005, the Defendant returned the above application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the period of office as an employee falls short of 20 years, and on March 11, 2005, the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to commute to and from work for Cheongju on March 11, 2005, and received retirement allowance of 18,642,790 won after the interim settlement date of accounts on September 16, 2005.

B. The defendant's employment rules

(1) Rules of employment

§ 2.(Definition of Officers and Employees)

2. The term "employee" means a person employed in accordance with employment standards and procedures prescribed by personnel regulations based on the fixed number of personnel under Article 5 of the Regulations on the Organization and work for the GEPS;

3. The term "temporary employee" means a person employed and working under a contract within budgetary limits, in addition to the prescribed number of personnel under Article 5 of the Regulations on the Organization;

Article 4 (Regulations) Matters concerning the personnel affairs, service, remuneration, etc. of the executives and employees of the Corporation shall be governed by the personnel management regulations and remuneration regulations, and matters concerning the personnel affairs and remuneration of temporary employees shall be governed by the regulations on temporary employees.

(2) Personnel Regulations

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Article is to ensure fair and reasonable personnel management by prescribing the matters concerning the personnel affairs and duties of the staff of the Road Traffic Safety Authority.

Article 3 (Definitions of Terms)

4. The term “election” means new employment, promotion, promotion, promotion, change of a salary, transfer, transfer, concurrently holding office, dispatch, demotion, temporary retirement, dismissal from position, suspension from office, reinstatement, dismissal, dismissal, and removal;

9. The term "period of employment" means the period of actual service since its appointment until now;

Article 31-5 (Honorable Retirement) (1) A person whose tenure of office is not less than 20 years and whose remaining tenure of retirement is not less than one year may voluntarily retire at his/her request.

(3) Ad hoc employment rules

Article 1 (Purpose) The purpose of this Regulation is to prescribe standards, procedures, etc. for the appointment, service, remuneration, etc. of employees employed under contracts within budgetary limits, in addition to the prescribed number of personnel under Article 5 of the Organization Regulations.

Article 3 (Classification of Temporary Employees)

2. Commercial posts: Employees who are appointed under a contract after determining the benefits on a monthly basis as necessary to continuously and stably perform the affairs in a specific field;

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff was employed permanently to the Defendant on December 21, 1984, the Plaintiff worked in the Defendant for more than 20 years from the time of the application for the voluntary retirement of this case.

B. On September 21, 1990, the Defendant did not settle accounts of retirement allowances corresponding to the period of ordinary employment and paid to the Plaintiff, who was appointed as a skilled worker. On around 1999, the Defendant settled and paid the retirement allowances calculated on the basis of the date of ordinary employment to the Plaintiff, as well as calculated the Plaintiff’s service period as of the date of ordinary employment by stating that the Plaintiff’s service period was “20 salary class” as the number of salary grades increased by salary class 1 each year after the statement

C. Therefore, even though the period of service as a business position is included in the period of service in the honorary retirement, the defendant applied personnel regulations only to employees, and the plaintiff unfairly rejected the plaintiff's application for voluntary retirement with objective qualifications on the ground that the period of service as an employee falls short of 20 years, and sought payment of KRW 63,90,000 of the honorary retirement allowance to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Unless there are special circumstances, such as where the rules of employment provide that a worker who has qualifications for application for the voluntary retirement only takes place, the right to review and decide on whether to accept an application for the voluntary retirement shall be reserved to the employer. However, the employer’s right to review and decide on whether to accept the application for the voluntary retirement shall be limited within a reasonable scope and shall not be abused by rejecting the application for the voluntary retirement on the ground of unfair reasons, in light of the circumstances in which the system was introduced, equity among applicants, and motive for applying for the voluntary retirement.

B. As seen earlier, Article 4 of the Rules of Employment provides that matters concerning the personnel affairs, service, remuneration, etc. of the defendant's executives and employees shall be governed by the personnel management rules and remuneration regulations, and accordingly, the remaining persons whose tenure of office is not less than 20 years and whose remaining tenure of office is not less than one year and whose remaining tenure of office is not less than one year may be eligible for the voluntary retirement, and since the term "period of employment" means the actual term of service since the appointment was made, and the term "election" means new employment, etc., the term "election" under the personnel management regulations means that the defendant is newly employed as an employee, and at that time, the plaintiff applied for the voluntary retirement, and the plaintiff seems to have applied for the voluntary retirement due to difficulties in commuting to his/her workplace. In light of the above, it cannot be said that there was any abuse of authority in examining and determining the defendant's application for voluntary retirement, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's ordinary position does not

C. Meanwhile, the fact that the Defendant did not settle accounts of retirement allowance corresponding to the period of ordinary service of employees on September 21, 1990 and paid interim retirement allowance calculated on the basis of the date of ordinary employment on around 1999 to the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties. In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 2 and 5, “retirement” refers to the status of termination of employment, such as the termination of the term of employment upon expiration of the term of employment, and the period of employment for calculation of retirement allowance refers to the period from the date of initial appointment as a temporary employee until the date of termination of employment after the date of initial appointment as a temporary employee. The provision on remuneration provides that the period of employment for calculation of retirement allowance for employees shall be calculated by adding the period of employment for employees to the retirement allowance for the period of employment of the Plaintiff from the month to the month of their initial appointment, and that the provision on temporary retirement allowance for the above period of employment should not be applied mutatis mutandis under the provision on temporary retirement allowance of the Plaintiff’s total number of reasons to which the above provision on retirement allowance or retirement allowance should not be applied mutatis mutandis.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges, at least one judge (Presiding Judge)