(a) Criteria for determining "unlimited managerial necessity", which is a requirement for layoff;

(b) The case holding that, if consultation with a labor union was not made in good faith with some employees who are not labor union members, and that, if the remaining requirements for layoff are met, layoffs are valid as a whole;

(a) "An urgent managerial necessity" that should be reduced as a requirement for layoff is not limited to cases where corporate bankruptcy is avoided, and where it is objectively deemed reasonable, it shall be deemed that there is an urgent managerial necessity.

(b) The case holding that, even if a company did not faithfully consult with a certain person who is not a labor union member, it has reached an agreement with a labor union representing union members, there is an urgent managerial necessity to reduce the number of employees, which is the effective requirement of the remaining layoff, and should have made efforts to avoid dismissal, and if it satisfies the requirement that the company should select a person to be dismissed in accordance with reasonable and fair adjustment criteria, it is valid, considering the whole of the circumstances, even if the company did not undergo prior consultation.

Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2445 delivered on March 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 881) 90Nu443 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong1991, 884) 91Da8647 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong192, 470) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da21036 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong192, 267)

Plaintiff 1 et al. and three plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and four others

Attorney Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na51575 delivered on March 31, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiffs were found to have been dismissed on April 30, 198, when the plaintiffs were employed in Yongnam Chemical Group by the evidence of this city, but the number of employees was reduced by 198 and 50 percent of the issued stocks of the non-party 1 corporation, which was originally owned by the non-party 2 corporation. According to the plan for rationalization of fertilizers, Dongnam Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. sold the shares of the non-party 1 to the non-party 3 company through open bidding, the non-party 1 corporation's affiliated company was awarded a contract and the non-party 8 corporation's management rights were acquired around February 22, 198. The 1987 government made efforts to purchase fertilizers produced by Youngnam Chemical Co., Ltd. to the non-party 1 corporation at the price calculated by adding adequate profits to the production cost of the non-party 1 corporation. However, from the end of December 1987, the non-party 198 company's total prices were decided by the non-party 1 corporation.

The urgent managerial necessity, which is a requirement for reorganization dismissal, is not limited to the case of avoiding corporate bankruptcy, and where it is objectively reasonable, it shall be deemed that there is an urgent managerial necessity (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8647 delivered on December 10, 191). The above managerial necessity is recognized under the facts acknowledged by the court below. Thus, the decision of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

However, according to the records, the fact-finding that the labor union represented the plaintiffs who are not members of the union cannot be justified, but the remaining fact-finding is acceptable, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. Although it did not faithfully consult with the plaintiffs who are not members of the Youngnam chemical, it did not reach an agreement with the representative labor union, it did not reach an agreement with the members of the labor union, there should have been an urgent business necessity to cut off the remaining requirements for layoff, and should have made efforts to avoid dismissal, and in this case where it satisfies the requirement to select a person to be dismissed by reasonable and fair adjustment criteria, it shall be deemed that the dismissal is valid, considering the whole, even if the Yongnam chemical did not undergo prior consultation with the plaintiffs, and therefore, it shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)