(영문) 대법원 2016.12.15.선고 2015다31476 판결

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for nullification of dismissal shall be reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed.

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The gist of the allegation in the grounds of appeal in this part is as follows: (a) the Defendant amended the rules of employment (Personnel Management Regulations) to the effect that the retirement age is reduced to 58 years with the consent of five of all six employees on December 23, 2013 through collective decision-making on December 23, 2013; and (b) the content thereof is reasonable

Although the Plaintiff had already set retirement age prior to the closure of pleadings in the lower court, the lower court erred by violating logical and empirical rules and misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Article 94 of the Labor Standards Act, and even according to the personnel management regulations set at the age of 60, the Plaintiff did not have a benefit to seek confirmation of the invalidity of dismissal by the instant lawsuit, as the Plaintiff had reached retirement age after the completion of pleadings in the lower court.

B. First of all, in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, acknowledged the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. The lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Plaintiff’s retirement age should be 60 years in accordance with the provision on personnel management before the revision, as it is difficult to deem that there is a rationality in social norms to the extent that the amendment of the personnel management regulations, which is the rules of employment as of December 23, 2013, did not go through a collective decision-making method while amending the personnel management regulations, which is the rules of employment, and further, shortening the retirement age at 58 years, regardless of employees’ consent. Thus, the Plaintiff’s retirement age cannot be recognized as 60 years in accordance with the above provision on personnel management. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles. However, the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal was filed between the Defendant and the Defendant, which is aimed at restoring the status under the labor contract between the Defendant and the 2020.

According to the records, even if the defendant's personnel management rules prior to the amendment of December 23, 2013 were followed, it was impossible for the plaintiff to recover his status as an employee because it is evident that the plaintiff reaches the retirement age of 60 years of age around June 15, 2015, which is the date of the closure of the fact-finding proceedings in this case, and that he would retire on June 30, 2015, which is the end of the month.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal is unlawful as there is no interest in legal action, the part of the judgment of the court below against which the claim cannot be maintained as it is (However, as long as the plaintiff's retirement age reaches the retirement age, the part of the judgment of the court below ordering the payment of wages until the time of reinstatement in relation to the part for which the claim for wages payment was accepted shall be deemed to have ordered payment only for the period until June 30

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, determined that the Plaintiff constituted a worker under the Labor Standards Act. In addition, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s unilateral declaration of intention constitutes unfair dismissal against the Plaintiff, as it was in fact null and void, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s unilateral declaration of intention constituted an unfair dismissal against the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff expressed his intention to resign. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for nullification of dismissal is reversed, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part is sufficient to be directly tried by this court, and this part of the lawsuit is revoked under Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and the remaining appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating