[1] 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)

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

[1] "Voluntary intention" in a declaration of intention, which is not an truth, refers to the idea of the speaker who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the speaker is true and correct, so even if the speaker did not bring the content of his/her expression in a true mind, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intention, which lacks the intention of internal deliberation, in the current situation where it is judged that it is best and the content of his/her expression of intention was expressed in a correct manner.

[2] In a case where an employer allows an employee who has no intention to resign to prepare and submit a written resignation, and then terminates an employment contract by taking the form of a so-called dismissal for a member, it shall be deemed that the employment contract relationship is terminated by the unilateral intent of the employer and thus, it constitutes dismissal. However, unless otherwise, the employment contract relationship between the employer and the employee is terminated by the termination of the agreement by accepting the declaration of intention of resignation due to the submission of the written resignation. Therefore, the employer’s dismissal for a member shall

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Da34475 delivered on April 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1260) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da41528, 41535 delivered on July 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2283), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16059 delivered on December 20, 196 (Gong1997Sang, 402) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu765 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2684), Supreme Court Decision 97Da1206 delivered on August 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 26859)

Plaintiff 1 and 30 others (Attorney Jeong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ansan-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 200Na3699, 3705 delivered on August 30, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff 1 retired from the defendant company and received retirement pay and retirement consolation money, etc., and prepared and submitted a confirmation form containing "I would like to receive retirement consolation money and not raise any objection related to future retirement" against the defendant company, and determined that the above plaintiff made an agreement to not file a lawsuit, such as civil litigation, with respect to all legal relations arising out of the termination of labor relations with the company including the lawsuit of this case disputing the invalidation of retirement at the defendant company, and determined that the above plaintiff's assertion that the retirement of this case was caused by deception and coercion of the defendant company, and that the agreement to file a lawsuit incidental to the above retirement should be revoked, was rejected on the ground that the above plaintiff's retirement or the agreement to file a lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed to have been caused by deception or coercion of the defendant company, and therefore, the above plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was brought against the agreement to file a lawsuit of this case and thus, it is unlawful for lack of interest in the protection of rights.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are all acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the validity of the non-instigation agreement. This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the above plaintiffs").

A. 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 mean the fact that the speaker is true and correct, so even if the speaker did not feel in the genuine mind of the contents of the expression, it cannot be deemed as the intention of the above plaintiffs, not the fact that it is the best in the present situation, if it was judged that it was the fact that it was the best, and thus, if it was made in the genuine mind of the contents of the expression of intention, it cannot be deemed as the expression of intention, not the fact that there was lack of the intention of the internal effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu16059, Dec. 20, 196; 9Da34475, Apr. 25, 200). According to the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, according to the above plaintiffs' submission of the opinion, it cannot be deemed that the above plaintiffs' expression of intention of resignation was lacking in the internal effect of the plaintiffs.

In addition, inasmuch as the economic situation of our country at the time when the defendant company implemented the desired retirement system, the management status of the defendant company and the general insurance company, and the necessity of restructuring and personnel reduction of the defendant company, etc., as recognized by the court below, it is difficult to deem the defendant company to have committed deception or coercion against the above plaintiffs merely because the defendant company explained to the effect that the defendant company may suffer any disadvantage in the course of implementing the desired retirement system or in the future, or in the event it fails to comply with the above solicitation for retirement. It is difficult to view that the above plaintiffs expressed their intent to resign.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, such as misapprehending the legal principles as to the expression of intention, fraud or duress. The ground of appeal on this part is not acceptable.

B. In a case where an employer has an employee who has no intention to resign prepare and submit a written resignation, and then terminates an employment contract by taking the form of dismissal from office, it shall be deemed that the employment contract relationship is terminated by the unilateral intent of the employer, and thus, it shall be deemed that it constitutes dismissal. However, unless otherwise, the employment contract relationship between the employer and the employee is terminated by the termination of the agreement by accepting the intent of resignation following the submission of the written resignation, and thus, the employer’s dismissal from office cannot be deemed as dismissal from office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu765, Jul. 30, 1996; 97Da12006, Aug. 29, 197; 9Da34475, Apr. 25, 2000).

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, since the above plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have submitted the resignation of this case due to deception, intimidation, or coercion of the defendant company, the labor contract relations between the above plaintiffs and the defendant company shall be terminated by the submission of the above plaintiffs' private staff and the acceptance of the defendant company, and it is clear that the above plaintiffs' assertion based on the premise that the retirement of this case constitutes a substantial layoff is not acceptable. In this regard, the court below's decision that the above plaintiffs' retirement of this case cannot be viewed as a substantial layoff, and it is just in holding that the effect of termination of the labor contract relations between the above plaintiffs and the defendant company shall not depend on the validity of the termination of the contract relations between the above plaintiffs and the defendant company as alleged by the above plaintiffs, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the dismissal of a member or the requirements for layoff. The ground for appeal

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

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)