Whether the agreement on the return of overseas expenses violates Articles 21 and 24 of the Labor Standards Act, where an employee does not work for a certain period of time.

When an employee dispatched overseas for not less than one year fails to perform his/her duties for not less than five years from the date of his/her return, the Gu administration that compensates the expenses incurred in the dispatch and other damages shall be paid to the employee who received education abroad, and where the employee retires without his/her work for the agreed period after returning to Korea, the expenses actually required shall be returned to the employer, but where the employee retires without his/her work for the agreed period after returning to Korea, such an agreement shall be deemed an agreement that the employee is exempted from the payment of penalty or damages prohibited under Article 24 of the Labor Standards Act, and such agreement shall not be deemed an agreement that provides for the exemption period of the obligation to return

Articles 24 and 21 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da2565 Delivered on January 29, 1974

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant’s legal representative

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2322 delivered on February 22, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4 of the defendant's attorney are also examined.

According to the facts established by the court below based on its adopted evidence, ○○○ Co., Ltd. established a separate company for all part of the electronic sector under its jurisdiction relating to the non-party to the defense industry, and established the plaintiff Co., Ltd., which became a major shareholder of 95 percent of total stocks, and transferred all the organization and facilities related to the above part to the plaintiff Co., Ltd., which led to the succession of all claims and obligations and the status of the non-party Co., Ltd. under the employment relationship with the defendant as to the above. The above ○○ Co., Ltd. notified the defendant Co., Ltd. about the transfer of such fact to 25 training members including the defendant Co., Ltd., which had been under its training in the U.S., and notified it to the plaintiff Co., Ltd., the above non-party Co., Ltd., Ltd., without the consent of the plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., the above 25 members including the defendant Co., Ltd., without the consent of the plaintiff Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and the above employees's personal guarantee need to be recognized as necessary.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are examined together.

The court below held that, when the period of overseas dispatch of the guidelines for the duty of overseas dispatch of the non-party ○○○, a non-party 1, who has promised that the defendant be dispatched to overseas for the technical training education of this case, is more than one year, the provision that the employee should compensate for the expenses and other damages required for the dispatch when the worker has received education abroad and the employer has paid all necessary expenses, and where the employee retires without the agreed period after returning to Korea, the expenses actually required shall be returned to the employer, but where the employee has worked during the agreed period, it shall be exempted from the payment. Thus, the above five-year period of employment or more is not stipulated in Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act, but the above exemption period of the duty of return of expenses should not be considered as the exemption period of the above obligation of the technical training of this case. The purpose of Articles 21 and 24 of the Labor Standards Act is to affirm the legal principles on the technical training of the plaintiff 2 to prevent the plaintiff 2 from returning to Korea through the restriction of the freedom of retirement of the employee.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Justice)