[1] Criteria for determining whether an employer’s dismissal from office constitutes dismissal

[2] The meaning of "the truth" in an expression of intention which is not the truth, and whether it constitutes a true expression of intention in a case where the expression of intention is judged to be the best, but the expression of intention is made (negative)

[3] The case holding that where the previous disciplinary dismissal disposition is revoked and the previous disciplinary dismissal disposition is disposed of as a member of the National Assembly because it is difficult for the worker to be reinstated as a result of a dispute over the invalidation of the disciplinary dismissal disposition after the worker was subjected to the disciplinary dismissal disposition, it does not constitute an expression of intention to resign

[4] Whether filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal after a long-term period of time after an employee received retirement allowances without reservation or condition of objection violates the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith (affirmative with qualification)

[1] The employer’s dismissal of a member of the employee who has no intention to resign is null and void due to an expression of intent not submitted by the employee, such as the case where the employer inevitably prepares and submits a written resignation and terminate the employment contract by taking the form of dismissal from office, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the employer’s dismissal from office is a dismissal that actually terminates the employment contract relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent, unless it is the case where the employer is deemed that the act of dismissal from office is a dismissal that actually terminates by the employer’s unilateral intent.

[2] The truth in the expression of intention, which is not the truth, refers to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not refer to the fact that the speaker is true and correct. Thus, even if the speaker did not express his/her intent in the manner of mind, if the speaker stated it as his/her best in the current situation and made the declaration of intention, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intention, which lacks the intention of internal deliberation.

[3] The case holding that in a case where the previous disciplinary measure is revoked and the previous disciplinary measure is taken against a member after the worker was subjected to disciplinary measure, since it is difficult to restore the worker to the original state because he was unable to dispute the invalidation of the disciplinary measure after the worker was subjected to disciplinary measure, he shall be deemed not to fall under the expression of the intention of his resignation.

[4] If an employee dismissed from the employer did not make any reservation or condition in the course of receiving retirement allowances, the validity of such dismissal shall be recognized unless there are objective circumstances that may be deemed to have been disputed without recognizing the validity of the dismissal, or there are other extenuating circumstances such as receiving it under the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of the dismissal after a long period of time is in violation of the good faith or the good faith and the good faith, and thus, it shall not be permitted.

[1] Article 107 of the Civil Act, Article 27 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) / [2] Article 107 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 107 of the Civil Act, Article 27 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see Article 30 of the current Labor Standards Act) / [4] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 27 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see Article 30 of the current Labor Standards Act)

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 92Da3809 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 2363), Supreme Court Decision 91Da38686 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 845 delivered on July 30, 1996) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu765 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2684 delivered on August 29, 197), Supreme Court Decision 97Da12059 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong197Ha, 2859) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da41528, 41535 delivered on July 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 294 delivered on April 29, 194)

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sung-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea Stock Exchange (Attorney Kim Young-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na4460 delivered on May 27, 1999

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the Defendant’s full-time head. The Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the Defendant’s full-time head. The Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the Defendant’s 19 years, and was thus subject to removal from office for the Defendant’s full-time head. The Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the Defendant’s 19 years. The Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the Defendant’s 19 years, and was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the same reason. The Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the Defendant’s 19 years, and the Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was against the principle of disciplinary dismissal for the same reason that the Plaintiff would not have been subject to disciplinary dismissal for the same reason. The Plaintiff’s act of dismissal from office was rejected for the same reason.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, since the defendant was notified by the National Security Planning Department at the end of October 1985 of the contents of the plaintiff's suspicion, and the plaintiff was refused to resign without examining and confirming the authenticity of the above suspicion, the defendant held a personnel committee on December 3 of the same year and made a decision to dismiss the plaintiff from the outside of the contents of the collection of information conducted by the plaintiff for the efficient management of the securities market by the defendant's hearing, based on the disciplinary ground that the plaintiff disclosed some of the contents of the collection of information conducted by the defendant for the efficient management of the securities market, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was subjected to disciplinary dismissal. Thus, there is

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Unless an employer has had an employee who has no intention to resign prepare and submit a written resignation, and it is null and void due to an expression of intention not submitted to the employee's resignation, such as the termination of an employment contract by taking the form of the so-called dismissal for council members, and thus, the employer's acceptance act constitutes an expression of intention not to be submitted, and thus, an employer's dismissal for council members is deemed to be a dismissal that substantially terminates the employment contract relationship by the employer's unilateral intent. Thus, an employer's dismissal for council members is terminated by the termination of the agreement, and thus, an employer's dismissal for council members is not deemed a dismissal for council members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu765, Jul. 30, 1996; 97Da12006, Aug. 29, 199). Thus, it is not the case where an employer has expressed his intent in 90Da12006, which is not the true expression of intention, and thus, it is not the case where the person has expressed his intent at 190.

If the facts are as determined by the court below, the plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary dismissal disposition from the defendant without any ground, and was subjected to a harsh investigation from the National Security Planning Department for one week in time, and the plaintiff was judged to be difficult to be reinstated due to the dispute over the invalidation of the disciplinary dismissal disposition in the situation at that time, and was requested for a retrial to the effect that on December 16, 1986, the defendant prepared and submitted a resignation notice as of December 5, 1985, and at the same time the previous disciplinary dismissal disposition was cancelled and requested for a request for a resignation. Thus, even if the plaintiff was not in the genuine mind at the time of submitting a resignation notice at the time of submitting a resignation notice, it is reasonable to view that there was an intention of resignation corresponding to the intention of resignation, not the intention of resignation, because the plaintiff was judged to be the best to revoke the disciplinary dismissal disposition through a retrial and to receive it for the future, and therefore, it cannot be said that there was an intention of resignation corresponding to the intention of resignation.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the termination of labor relations by unilateral expression of intent and the interpretation of expression of intention, not the truth, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. As to the third ground for appeal

In a case where an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any reservation or condition on the validity of the dismissal without recognizing the validity of the dismissal, or where there exist objective circumstances such as receiving it under the circumstances where other reasonable grounds exist, the validity of the dismissal shall be recognized, barring special circumstances. Therefore, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of the dismissal after a long period of time has elapsed is not permissible as it violates the principle of good faith or the principle of no-competence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da1728, Apr. 14, 1992; 95Da51847, Mar. 8, 1996).

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff did not withhold any objection while receiving retirement allowances, etc. upon receipt of the notice of dismissal from office from office as above by the plaintiff's person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person's person's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member's member.

Therefore, the court below rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case is in violation of the good faith principle or the good faith principle, and thereby committed an unlawful act which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the good faith principle and the good faith principle in labor disputes. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)