(a) The case that dismissal for reduction of salary does not meet the requirements for layoff and is null and void;

(b) The receipt of a retirement allowance without an objection and the filing of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal after a considerable period of time has elapsed, and the good faith principle;

(a) The case that dismissal for reduction of salary does not meet the requirements for layoff, and thus is null and void.

B. If an employee dismissed from the employer did not present any reservation or condition in the course of receiving a retirement allowance, the validity of the dismissal shall be deemed to have been recognized, barring any special circumstances, and due to the expiration of a considerable period of time, the employer’s filing a lawsuit claiming the invalidity of the dismissal at the latest after the dismissed employee came to have a legitimate expectation to not exercise his/her right, thereby violating the good faith principle, and thus, cannot be permitted.

(b) Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2445 delivered on March 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 881). Supreme Court Decision 92Da3670 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2013) (Gong1992, 2013), Supreme Court Decision 91Da38686 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong193, 845) 93Da21736 delivered on September 24, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2925)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Young-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na66614 delivered on June 30, 1992

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since Article 15 (2) 4 of the Regulations on Personnel Management of the defendant cooperative provides that employees may be dismissed ex officio when they become dismissed or reduced due to the organization of dismissal, opening or closing of the prescribed number of employees, or reduction of budget, etc., the defendant cooperative operated an independent accounting system on October 1980, using various kinds of subsidies from the Government, business earnings and forestry cooperative expenses as major revenue. However, the labor expenses for the employees of the cooperative are less than 10% out of the total expenditure budget, and it is difficult for the cooperative to find that there were no reasonable reasons for the dismissal of the above employees to be removed from the National Forestry Cooperatives Federation to reduce the number of employees under the direction of the National Forestry Cooperatives Federation for the reasons that it would have been difficult for the cooperative to carry out the above management rationalization. Secondly, it is difficult for the cooperative to dismiss the employees under the direction of the National Forestry Cooperatives Federation for more than 10% of the total expenditure budget and to dismiss them under the direction of the above 190th regular employees.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above assertion on the assertion that the plaintiff who received retirement benefits after the dismissal and received retirement benefits after the dismissal against the defendant association's assertion that the plaintiff's rejection of the above dismissal would violate the good faith principle, and that the plaintiff's rejection of retirement benefits after the dismissal from the defendant association was against the principle of good faith, but there was no individual reason to be dismissed, but there was no individual reason to be dismissed, and that the plaintiff received retirement benefits after the dismissal in the process of business management, in light of the fact that the plaintiff refused to submit private employees until the dismissal and was dismissed, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff was dismissed from the dismissal and there was no other evidence to deem that the plaintiff was dismissed from the dismissal.

However, unless an employee dismissed from the employer did not present any reservation or condition of the retirement allowance while receiving it, barring any special circumstance, it would be deemed that the dismissal was effective, and since a considerable period of time has passed, filing a lawsuit claiming the invalidation of dismissal at the latest after the dismissed employee came to believe that he would not exercise his right, it would be in violation of the principle of good faith and thus it would not be permitted (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da3018 delivered on January 21, 192; Supreme Court Decision 91Da39085 delivered on March 13, 192; Supreme Court Decision 92Da3670 delivered on May 26, 192; Supreme Court Decision 92Da3670 delivered on May 26, 192). It should be viewed that the above receipt of retirement allowance was not limited to the circumstances at the time of dismissal, and it should be decided that the Plaintiff did not have any influence on the principle of good faith and good faith after the dismissal of the Plaintiff and the Defendant's rejection of retirement allowance.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)