[1] Whether the labor conditions stipulated in the rules of employment are favorable to certain workers, but disadvantageously changed to other workers should be subject to consent by the collective decision-making method of the entire workers (affirmative)

[2] Where there is no trade union to require the consent of the employee, the method of obtaining the consent of the employee

[3] Whether the revised rules of employment apply to the relationship between a worker and a worker who had a labor relationship under the revised rules of employment, even though the revised rules of employment did not have an effect in relation to the existing worker because of the worker's consent (affirmative)

[1] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act / [3] Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da1893 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1701) Supreme Court Decision 94Da18072 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1578) Supreme Court Decision 96Da1726 delivered on August 26, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2809) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23185, 23192 delivered on May 14, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 976) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52456 delivered on May 12, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 2093Da364196 delivered on May 16, 209)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2009Na3837 decided January 22, 2010

Of the part against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) in the lower judgment, the part on the claim for wages is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The remaining appeals by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendant’s appeal are all dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. First, we examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

A. As to whether the revision of the rules of employment is disadvantageous to workers

In order for an employer to revise the existing working conditions against a worker due to the revision of the rules of employment, consent shall be obtained from the worker who is subject to the previous working conditions or collective decision-making method (proviso of Article 94(1) of the Labor Standards Act). Here, whether it constitutes an unfavorable change to a worker should be uniformly determined for the entire worker. However, if the change is favorable to a part of the worker, but it is difficult to quantly evaluate whether it is disadvantageous to a worker as a whole because it is unfavorable to another worker, it is reasonable to treat the worker as disadvantageous to the worker, and to have the worker make a decision according to the entire intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the change of the salary system to the annual salary system is an amendment to the rules of employment disadvantageous to workers, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of employment as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Regarding workers’ consent methods regarding the amendment to the rules of employment

If the consent of workers is necessary, if there is no trade union to amend the rules of employment, the consent of the majority of workers shall be obtained through the meeting method which raises the opinions of workers by exchanging the opinions between workers by the entire place of business, organization, and unit department in a situation where the intervention or interference of the employer is excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32362, Jan. 28, 2010, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's explanation on the implementation of the annual salary system at the Teachers' Training Council held on February 25, 1999, and that the submission of individual written consent from teachers on March 199 cannot be deemed as a consent of teachers through collective decision-making. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the consent by the workers' meeting method, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party, hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

A. As to the amount of salary grade salary in 2007, 2008

(1) The lower court determined that, rather than applying the performance-based annual salary system under the revised rules of employment, with respect to the Plaintiff and the designated parties Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, the annual salary system under the previous rules of employment should be applied. The lower court held that, insofar as the Plaintiff and the designated parties were to receive the benefits under the performance-based annual salary system under the performance-based annual salary system that should be paid in 2007 and 2008, the amount of the benefits under the performance-based annual salary system under the performance-based annual salary system was the same as the benefits paid by the Defendant under the salary class that the Defendant set out in the year 2006 for the faculty members belonging to the Plaintiff and the designated parties in 207 and 206, the Defendant is obligated to pay the difference between the actual payment and the remuneration for the year 2006.

(2) However, according to the records, Article 5(2) of the Regulations on the Remuneration of Badon University, which was applied by the Defendant at the time of the enforcement of the salary grade system, provides that the salary grade of a teacher shall be elevated on a yearly basis, but the regular salary grade shall have been stipulated as March 1 each year. Therefore, the amount of salary for the year 2007, 2008, which was paid to the Plaintiff and the aforementioned designated parties subject to the salary grade system under the previous rules of employment, shall be deemed to be the amount based on salary grade 1 and salary grade 2, respectively, set at the age of 206.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that the amount of benefits to be paid in the year 2007, 2008 without deliberating on the standard salary class corresponding to the above raise in salary grade is identical to the amount of benefits paid in the year 2006. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of unlawful or unpaid wages in the grounds and inconsistent with the reasoning under Article 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

B. As to the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status:

The lower court determined that the Defendant did not bear an obligation to pay remuneration equivalent to the level of remuneration for teachers of national and public universities as provided for in Article 3 (2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, on the grounds that the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that the remuneration for teachers shall be separately prescribed by the rules based on the degree of difficulty and responsibility of qualification, experience and duties.

According to the records, the calculation of the salary class, which is the basis for the determination of a salary under the Regulations on Remuneration of the Badon University, applied at the time of the enforcement of the salary class system, is limited to the calculation of the salary class, and does not require the president to pay the remuneration equivalent to the amount of the remuneration of the faculty of the State and the public universities. In addition, in consideration of the legislative purport of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 3 (2) of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. Regarding teachers appointed after the revision of the rules of employment

If an employer did not obtain consent from an employee while revising the working conditions stipulated in the rules of employment disadvantageously to an employee, the effect of the previous rules of employment remains intact as it does not extend to the relationship with the existing employee whose benefit is infringed upon, but the revised rules of employment naturally applies to the relationship with the employee who accepted the working conditions under the revised rules of employment and acquired the employment relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da58364, Jun. 24, 2011).

The lower court determined that the annual salary system should be applied to the designated parties in accordance with the revised rules of employment, inasmuch as the selected parties Kim Young-young and Song-un agreed to the provision on the payment of the above annual salary as they were newly appointed after the amendment to the performance-based annual salary system and concluded the annual salary contract with the Defendant. In light of the above legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the application of the amended rules of employment, as otherwise

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court below, the part of the claim for wages in the year 2007, 2008 against the plaintiff and the selected parties 1, 2, 3-207, 2008 is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are all dismissed. It is so decided

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)