2017 Gohap69090 Requests for revocation of revocation of subsidies

1. A;

2. B

The head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office Seoul East Site

April 20, 2018

May 18, 2018

1. On April 11, 2017, the Defendant’s disposition of site payment against Plaintiff A, and the disposition of site payment against Plaintiff B on April 12, 2017, is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Order.1)

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are subject to the application of the wage peak system from March 1, 2014, which is 55 years old pursuant to the regulations of our bank, under the introduction of the wage peak system under force, which is a structure of reducing wages from 55 years old as workers of our bank (hereinafter referred to as "Korean bank") as of May 1, 1959.

B. The Plaintiffs filed an application with the Defendant for the payment of the wage peak system under Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 28-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and on April 11, 2017, the Defendant issued a land-based disposition of subsidies (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant dispositions”) on the ground that: (a) with respect to the Plaintiff B on April 11, 2017, each bank set the period of application of the wage peak system to the Plaintiff “from March 1 (the same date on which personnel movement took place after March 1) of the year in which each bank reaches the age of 55,” and (b) it does not fall under the case of implementation of the system of reduction after the age of 55.

C. In 2005, the Korean bank introduced the wage peak system in which wages are reduced from March 1 of the year in which it became 55 years of age through a labor-management agreement. From March 1 of the year in which it became 55 years of age, the first half of the year in which it became 55 years of age, and the second half of the year in which the wage is reduced from September 1 of the year in which it became 55 years of age, and the second half of the year in which it was 55 years of age, respectively, was changed and operated by

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each disposition of this case shall be revoked on the grounds that it is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The main sentence of Article 28-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that “Where the Minister of Employment and Labor implements the system of reducing wages after the age of 60 or more pursuant to Article 23 of the Act at a business or workplace that sets the retirement age of 60 or more, the Minister of Employment and Labor shall grant subsidies from the date of application of the system of reducing wages to the relevant employee who is aged 60 or more, to December 31, 2018.” In light of the purpose of the wage peak system, etc., the above part shall be interpreted as “where the system of reducing wages is implemented from the year when the age of 55 belongs to that of 55, and as long as the Korean bank implements the system of reducing wages from the year when the age of 55 belongs, the Plaintiffs meet the requirements for subsidies

2) The Defendant has paid the wage peak system subsidies to the employees of our bank for the past 10 years, and it is possible to pay the wage peak system subsidies to the employees of our bank. The Defendant respondeded to the question of the employees of our bank. As such, there was a reasonable trust that the Plaintiffs would also be granted subsidies to them, and therefore, the Defendant’s refusal of the Plaintiffs’ application without any change in circumstances violates the principle of trust protection.

3) Each of the dispositions of this case violates the principle of equality by discriminating against the Plaintiffs and other employees of the Bank of Korea who received subsidies from the Defendant without reasonable grounds.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As a matter of principle, the law is a norm which has the same binding force against many and unspecified persons, and thus, it should be interpreted in an objective feasibility by clarifying the standard meaning of the law, as well as by maintaining consistency acceptable to all the people as much as possible so as not to undermine legal stability. Meanwhile, since positive law is established in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also required to interpret that the law can be most reasonable and reasonable in applying the law in a variety of cases that occur in society reality. In short, the purpose of statutory interpretation must be to find concrete feasibility within the extent that does not undermine legal stability. Furthermore, as a matter of principle, the legislative intent and purpose of the law should be faithfully interpreted in light of the ordinary meaning of the language used in the law. To do so, the systematic and logical interpretation of the law should be followed by additionally using a systematic and logical method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, history of its amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da313181, Jul. 1, 2013).

2) Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the Minister of Employment and Labor may provide necessary assistance to a business owner who newly employs the aged, etc. or takes measures necessary for their employment stability under the ordinary conditions of the labor market, such as the aged (hereinafter referred to as "seniors, etc."), as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in order to promote their employment." Article 28-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act provides that "the Minister of Employment and Labor shall provide a subsidy to a business or place of business that sets the retirement age at at least 60 pursuant to Article 23 of the Employment Insurance Act and implements a system of reduction of wages after the age of 55 or more, from the date of application of the system of reduction of wages to the relevant employee by December 31, 2018: Provided, That where the employment period of the relevant employee ends before December 31, 2018, the Minister shall provide that the wage reduction system shall be paid during such employment period."

In light of the legislative purport of the Employment Insurance Act and the specific contents of the aforementioned related Acts and subordinate statutes, the main purpose of the Employment Insurance Act is to reduce the burden of enterprises due to the employment of long-term workers by subsidizing part of wages reduced to workers belonging to the workplace which has adopted the wage peak system, and ultimately to allow the enterprises to extend the employment of long-term workers. Therefore, the above system has its main purpose to protect workers through the extension of employment. Therefore, the interpretation of the provision related to the wage peak system should also be in line with the legislative purpose and purpose of the wage peak system as mentioned above.

On the other hand, the wage peak system introduced by Presidential Decree No. 19246, Dec. 30, 205, provides that "the Minister of Labor shall grant workers subject to reduction of wage based on the period of continuous employment or the amount of wage under the provision of Article 18 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "the wage peak system")," which means that "it shall not be subject to reduction of wage for five workers before and after 5 years old," and that it shall not be subject to reduction of wage under the provision of Article 22-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Insurance Act, for five workers who will be subject to reduction of wage by 25 years old and later than 5 years old and later than 20 years old and later than 5 years old, it shall not be subject to reduction of wage for 15 years old and later than 25 years old and later than 20 years old and shall not be subject to reduction of wage (Article 28 (1) 1 of the Act).

3) As seen in the instant case, our bank operates the wage peak system to reduce wages from March 1 of the year in which it became 55 years of age, and from September 1 of the year in which 55 years of age became 55 years of age, respectively. Workers whose wages are reduced before 55 years of age are those between March 2 and June 30 and those between September 2 and December 31, and those who were born before 55 years of age are clearly and clearly subject to the scope of early reduction of wages. The scope of early reduction of wages is limited to a maximum of 4 months of age, and the actual employer and workers’ intent at the time of the labor-management agreement on the wage reduction system is to enforce the wage reduction system after 55 years of age, and uniformly determine the wage peak system for convenience in operation, and thus, it cannot be seen that the legislative purpose of Article 2 of the Employment Insurance Act is to be applied even if the legislative purpose of the wage peak system is to expand the wage reduction period to 5 years of age and thus, it does not seem to be effective.

4) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the wage peak system introduced and operated by a Korean bank constitutes "the case where the wage reduction system is implemented after the age of 55 as stipulated in Article 28-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment and Labor Act." Thus, each of the dispositions of this case against the plaintiffs that the defendant refused to pay the wage peak system to the plaintiffs on a different premise is unlawful. Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case must be revoked (for the same reason, each of the dispositions of this case should be revoked, and therefore, the plaintiffs' remaining allegations of illegality

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the rank of the judge;

Judge Kim Gin-hun

Judges Kim Gin-jin

1) Since it is apparent that the date of disposition against the Plaintiff B was the date of disposition on April 11, 2017, “the date of disposition against the Plaintiff B,” the written complaint’s purport is the clerical error of “ April 12, 2017,” it is so selected.

A person shall be appointed.