208da62724 Nullification, etc. of dismissal

Plaintiff:

Law Firm LLC et al.

Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al.

National Health Insurance Corporation

Law Firm LLC, Attorney Park Jae-soo

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na125194 Decided July 25, 2008

March 26, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after the lapse of the submission period) are examined as to the grounds of appeal.

1. In full view of the evidence of employment, the court below held that Article 16 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant Corporation provides that "the chief director shall appoint or dismiss employees under the title of "the appointment or dismissal of employees" under the personnel regulations, and Article 17 provides that "the employees of the Corporation shall not be dismissed against their will except where they are subject to disciplinary action or ex officio dismissal under the title of "the status guarantee of employees" as provided by the personnel regulations, and the personnel regulations of the defendant Corporation provide that the grounds, types, procedures, etc. of disciplinary action in Chapter 7 include the fact that Article 85 provides for the reasons, types, procedures, etc. of ex officio dismissal in Article 83, and the facts as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be maintained against the provisions of Article 17 of the articles of incorporation, which are enacted by delegation of the articles of incorporation, and such provisions are null and void because Article 83 of the personnel regulations are not listed in the articles of incorporation for reasons other than ex officio dismissal against their will and are therefore null and void under Article 87 of this case.

However, such determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

2. “Dismissal” under the Labor Standards Act refers to the termination of a labor relationship by an employer’s unilateral intent against the employee’s will against the employee’s will, without relation to the actual name or procedure unfavorable to the employee’s workplace, and even if the employer provides the occurrence of a certain cause as a reason for ipso facto dismissal or disciplinary dismissal and provides the procedure differently from the employee’s intention, if the employer unilaterally terminates a labor relationship in the employer regardless of the employee’s intention, it shall be deemed as dismissal under the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da54210, Oct. 26, 1993, etc.).

In addition, in interpreting the provisions of the articles of incorporation and the personnel regulations enacted pursuant to delegation of the articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation, the objective and reasonable interpretation should be made by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and function of the establishment of the defendant corporation, the overall form and content of the articles of incorporation and personnel regulations, the purport and content of each of the provisions, and the relationship with other provisions.

The facts acknowledged by the court below and records as follows. The defendant Corporation is an insurer of the national health insurance under the National Health Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the public interest of its duties is recognized, Article 22 (1) of the Act provides that if an officer of the defendant Corporation becomes disqualified as an officer under Article 21 of the Act, the officer in question shall be retired automatically. The articles of incorporation of the defendant Corporation also have the same purport (Articles 12 and 13 of the articles of incorporation). The personnel regulations of the defendant Corporation are established based on Article 16 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant Corporation. Therefore, Article 83 (ipso facto Retirement) of the personnel regulations also can be seen as stipulated by the articles of incorporation. All of the reasons under Article 83 of the personnel regulations are included in the employees under Article 8 of the personnel regulations, whether the employee constitutes a reason for ipso facto retirement, objective uniform, and whether the employee constitutes a reason for disqualification under Article 22 (1) of the Act, and it can be easily determined that the employee's dismissal is effective under Article 83 of the Labor Standards Act.

Unlike this, the judgment of the court below that Article 83 of the personnel regulations of defendant Corporation, which provides ipso facto retirement, violates Article 17 of the articles of incorporation of defendant Corporation, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interpretation or ipso facto retirement of the articles of incorporation of defendant Corporation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court Decision cited by the court below points out that it is inappropriate to invoke the case as it differs from this case.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee

Justices Park Jong-hwan

Justices Park Poe-young