If the amendment of the rules on remuneration is not reasonable in terms of social norms, even without the consent of the worker group, the amendment shall be effective.

If the amendment of the rules on remuneration cannot be deemed reasonable by social norms without the consent of the employee group, the amendment shall not affect the effect of the amendment in relation to existing workers whose interests are infringed by the amendment of the rules on remuneration.

Article 95(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 4099 of March 29, 1989)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Plaintiffs Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Choi Han-sil, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na46334 delivered on May 4, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the labor union of the defendant Corporation ratified the amendment of the payment regulations of the defendant Corporation on January 27, 1981 when the labor union of the defendant Corporation entered into a collective agreement with the defendant Corporation on September 14, 1988, on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no reason to argue that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground to hold the judgment below.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Even if there are circumstances pointed out in theory, it cannot be deemed reasonable by the circumstance that the amendment of the above remuneration provision of Defendant Corporation cannot be deemed reasonable by social norms without the consent of the employee group. Thus, the court below's decision that the amendment of the above remuneration provision of Defendant Corporation does not affect the validity of the amendment in relation to the existing workers whose vested interests are infringed by the amendment of the above remuneration provision of Defendant Corporation. There is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for discussion.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)