beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that since the Plaintiff did not agree to the rules for operating the wage peak system (Employment Rules) enforced from March 1, 2017 with the consent of the labor union organized by a majority of workers of the Defendant, the existing wage rules should apply, and accordingly, the difference between wages and retirement allowances calculated shall be 94,657,990 won
2. Even if the revised rules of employment unfavorable to the judgment worker obtained a collective consent, the rules of employment cannot be deemed to take precedence over the existing individual labor contract that sets more favorable working conditions.
In this case, the content of a labor contract shall continue to exist effectively, the content of a labor contract shall not be modified according to the revised rules of employment, and the content of a labor contract more favorable than the rules of employment shall be applied preferentially to the Defendant’s employee without individual consent (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da200709, Nov. 14, 2019). The Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s employee, did not consent to the operating rules of the wage peak (Employment Rules) enforced from March 1, 2017 with the consent of the labor union organized by a majority of the employees, and the fact that the Plaintiff received wages and retirement allowances by January 1, 2020 pursuant to the rules of operating the wage peak system by the date of retirement does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.
The above legal principle is premised on the existence of an individual employment contract that sets the terms and conditions more favorable than the revised rules of employment, and the above legal principle cannot be applied to a case where there is no agreement on the method of calculating wages or the amount of money under an individual employment contract.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that a specific individual employment contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, at the time of entry, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract to determine wages according to the Defendant’s wage regulations.