The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 24(1) through (3) of the Labor Standards Act with respect to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, an employer shall have urgent managerial needs to dismiss workers for managerial reasons, and shall make every effort to avoid dismissal, and shall establish reasonable and fair criteria for the selection of the persons subject to dismissal, and shall notify the trade union organized by a majority of workers or the representative of workers of the methods of avoiding dismissal and the criteria for dismissal at least 50 days prior to the intended date of dismissal and consult in good faith.

In this context, the specific contents of each of the above requirements are not fixed and fixed, but are determined flexibly in relation to the degree of fulfillment of other requirements in a specific case. Thus, whether dismissal by managerial reasons satisfies all of the above requirements should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the individual circumstances that constitute the above requirements.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29452, Jul. 9, 2002). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff made efforts to avoid layoffs, and the criteria for selecting those subject to layoffs were fair and reasonable.

It is difficult to see that there was a faithful consultation on the labor representative or the criteria for selection of persons subject to dismissal.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are the purport that there is an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence concerning the requirements

However, even if examining the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the fourth ground of appeal, the court may freely decide whether to accept evidence, unless it is the sole evidence of the facts alleged by the parties.