[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)

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 30 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 9Da34475 delivered on April 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1260), Supreme Court Decision 200Da51919, 51926 delivered on January 19, 201 (Gong2001Sang, 5199) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da12006 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2859), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60528 delivered on April 11, 200 (Gong203Sang, 1160) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16059 delivered on December 20, 196 (Gong1997Sang, 194; 203Da42845 delivered on April 25, 2005)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korean Racing Association

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na43727 decided May 19, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where an employer receives a resignation from an employee and has an employee who has no intention to resign prepare and submit a resignation document inevitably, if the employer has had the employee prepare and submit it, it shall be deemed that the employment contract is terminated by the unilateral intent of the employer. However, unless otherwise, the employment contract relationship between the employer and the employee is terminated by the agreement terminated by the employer’s acceptance of the declaration of resignation following the submission of the resignation. Therefore, the employer’s dismissal of the employee cannot be deemed as dismissal of the employee (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60528, Apr. 11, 2003), and “in the expression of intention,” “in the expression of intention” refers to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific expression of intention, and it does not mean the matters that are bound by the genuine expression of intention. Thus, even if the voter did not intend the contents of the expression of intention, if it is judged that it is the best in the current situation, it shall not be deemed as an dismissal of the employee’s expression of intention.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning. The defendant suspended the repayment of housing funds to the desired retirees through prior consultation with the labor union in order to improve management conditions and meet the instructions of the government, prepared a desired retirement system, and implemented the desired retirement benefits, and asked the plaintiffs for desired retirement, and then selected the plaintiffs as desired retirement eligible for voluntary retirement in accordance with the criteria for adjustment in employment established in consultation with the labor union in the process. The plaintiffs were at the lowest level in the same class, and were in accordance with the criteria for adjustment in employment under the labor-management agreement as of November 16, 1998 at the time. The plaintiffs did not raise an objection to the selection of the prospective retirement eligible for additional retirement benefits in addition to the cases where the plaintiffs did not have an effect on the recruitment of the prospective retirement eligible for additional retirement benefits, and the plaintiffs did not have any objection to the desired retirement benefits and additional retirement allowances as of November 16, 1998 at the time of the request of the plaintiffs, and decided that the plaintiffs were forced to receive retirement benefits and additional retirement benefits from the labor union at the time of this case without any objection.

In light of the above legal principles and records, all of the above facts finding and determination by the court below are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and all of the Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in other cases.

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)