(a) Whether the above provisions on retirement benefits are effective where the amount of retirement calculated under Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act exceeds the amount calculated although the fuel subsidies, etc. are not included in the basic wages for calculation of the retirement allowances in accordance with the retirement allowances regulations (affirmative);

(b) Whether the amended provisions are effective in cases where the rules on retirement pay were amended disadvantageous to employees in the calculation of the number of days of payment of retirement allowances and the calculation of the basic wages of retirement allowances without the consent of the employee group (negative)

C. Whether the obligation to pay for family allowances, physical training expenses, and mine employment allowances constitutes basic wages for the calculation of retirement allowances, which are prescribed in a collective agreement, etc. (affirmative)

A. Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act is deemed to stipulate the lower limit of the amount of retirement to be paid to the retired employee. Therefore, even if the amount of retirement allowance, food expenses, physical training expenses, etc., calculated under the above provision, is not included in the basic wage for the calculation of retirement allowance, if the amount of retirement allowance calculated under the above provision exceeds the amount calculated under the above provision of the Labor Standards Act, the above provision is valid.

B. The revision of the rules of employment requires the consent of a collective decision-making method of an employee group to which the previous rules of employment were applied in order to unilaterally disadvantage the employees, and the amendment of the rules of retirement enacted in the collective agreement clearly stipulates that the agreement should be reached between labor and management, if the revised rules of retirement allowance are made more unfavorable to the employees in the calculation of the number of payment dates of retirement allowances and the calculation of the basic wages of retirement allowances than the amendments made without the consent of the employees.

C. Family allowances, physical training expenses, rehabilitation allowances, production promotion allowances, technical allowances, and mine service allowances have been continuously and regularly paid by the Korea Coal Corporation. The duty to pay them is governed by collective agreements, rules of employment, employment contracts and other relevant regulations, and if a uniform payment has been made to persons meeting certain requirements, it is reasonable to deem that such payment has the nature of wages, which are the remuneration for labor, and therefore, it is reasonable to include them in the basic wages for the calculation of retirement allowances.

(b)Article 28(1)(b) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 95(c) of the same Act; Article 19 of the same Act; Article 31(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. C. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1409 Decided February 24, 1987 (Gong1987,506) (Gong1987,506). Supreme Court Decision 90Meu2857 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong198,950) (Gong198,950) Decided May 10, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4277 Decided May 9, 1989 (Gong1989,88) (Gong1990,82), 89Meu24780 Decided March 13, 1990 (Gong190,82) (Gong190,157).

Kim Byung-Ha et al.

Park Man-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Byung-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Chang-joon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na7830 delivered on June 20, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

Article 28(1) of the Labor Standards Act is deemed to stipulate the lower limit of the amount of retirement to be paid to the retired employee. As such, even if the amount of retirement calculated under the above provision is not included in the basic wage for calculating the amount of retirement allowance, if the amount of retirement calculated under the above provision is more than the amount calculated under the above provision of the Labor Standards Act, the above provision is valid.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.

In addition, according to the contents of the retirement allowance calculation statement (No. 1-7, 12, 25) prepared by the defendant corporation, the court below's determination that the above family allowance was not paid even if it was recognized that the payment of the above family allowance of KRW 87,592 to the plaintiff Kim Byung-jin, KRW 44,000 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, and KRW 66,576 to the plaintiff Kim Jong-sik during the three months prior to his retirement, was erroneous. However, even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the wage which the defendant corporation used as the basis for the calculation of the retirement allowance includes the above plaintiffs' family allowance, and the court below also included the family allowance in the basic wage for the calculation of the retirement allowance, and such inconsistency in the reasoning of the judgment below does not affect any conclusion.

After all, the court below erred in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the court below excluded family allowances in calculating the retirement allowance of this case. All of the arguments are without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

In order to unilaterally revise the contents of the existing working conditions to disadvantage workers due to the revision of the rules of employment, the consent by collective decision-making method of a group of workers subject to the previous rules of employment should be required. Even according to Article 44 of the collective agreement of this case, the amendment of the rules of retirement allowance, which was enacted, clearly states that it should go through an agreement between labor and management, is null and void.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the revised rules of retirement allowance without the consent of the employees are invalid because they were modified disadvantageously to the employees in the calculation of the number of payment dates of retirement allowances and the scope of basic wages for calculation of retirement allowances, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the amendment of the union retirement allowance rules or by

In addition, family allowances, physical training expenses, rehabilitation allowances, production promotion allowances, technical allowances, and mine service allowances have been continuously and regularly paid by the Defendant Corporation during that period. The obligation to pay them is governed by collective agreements, rules of employment, employment contracts and other relevant regulations, and it has been uniformly paid to persons meeting certain requirements. Therefore, it is just that the lower court included them in the retirement allowance calculation basis wages for employees before and after the amendment of the retirement allowance rules and for employees before and after the amendment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of wages.

Such determination does not conflict with the purport of the previous Supreme Court Decision. On the other hand, even if the revised retirement allowance rules applied to the employee of the Defendant Corporation pursuant to Article 3349(2) of the Addenda of the Labor Standards Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3349 of Dec. 31, 1980), the part concerning the basic wages for calculating the retirement allowances of the employee of the revised retirement allowance rules cannot be applied to the employee simply because the allowances paid to the employee and the employee did not coincide with the basic wages under the above revised retirement allowance rules, so the lower court is justifiable to include the physical training expenses, mine service allowances, and technical allowances in the basic wages for calculating the retirement allowances after April 1, 1981. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)