The case holding that, in case where a person receives retirement allowances, etc. under favorable terms from an employer and receives transfer money from the Trade Union Mutual Aid Association, and withdraws from the dormitory, the dismissal of disciplinary action is implicitly approved

The case holding that disputing its validity is contrary to the good faith principle and the good faith principle on the ground that it impliedly approved the validity of disciplinary dismissal in the dormitory after receiving retirement allowances, etc. under favorable terms from the employer and receiving a transfer money from the Trade Union Mutual Aid Association, and then retired from the dormitory.

Article 27(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5245 of Dec. 31, 1996)

Supreme Court Decision 92Da29429 delivered on March 9, 1993 (Gong1991, 1629), Supreme Court Decision 94Da33552 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1584), Supreme Court Decision 94Da4573, 45760 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 400), Supreme Court Decision 95Da51847 delivered on March 8, 1996 (Gong196, 196Sang, 1218)

Dongnam Transportation Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-il, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant Intervenor (Attorney Lee In-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu10990 delivered on February 11, 1999

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

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period).

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant assistant intervenor (hereinafter only referred to as the intervenor) received more amount of retirement allowances than the provision of the plaintiff without any reservation or condition of objection during the disciplinary dismissal of this case and received a separate payment from the trade union's trade union's mutual aid association, and then withdrawn from the dormitory after he voluntarily resigned or recognized the validity of dismissal, and reversed it, and disputing the validity of dismissal cannot be permitted since it violated the principle of good faith or the principle of no-competiation. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's above assertion was acknowledged, but the plaintiff refused to submit a written resignation at the time of receiving retirement allowances, etc., and applied for relief to the local Labor Relations Commission since the intervenor did not know that there was an objective reason to deem that the intervenor did not dispute the validity of the dismissal of this case without recognizing the validity of the dismissal of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation alone alone cannot be deemed to have voluntarily retired or otherwise denied the validity of the dismissal of the intervenor.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff's disposition of suspension from office for one month from July 1, 1997 to 31 of the same month was maintained on June 20, 197 as well as one-month retirement allowance at the Review Committee, which was held on June 18, 197, and was issued by the plaintiff 197 on June 30, 197 to 97. It was decided that the plaintiff will not be subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff 197, and that the plaintiff will not be subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff 197, and that the plaintiff will not be subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff 2 on July 1, 1997, and that the plaintiff will not be subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff 197. This decision was made on July 1, 1997, and that the plaintiff will not be subject to disciplinary action against the plaintiff 197.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith and the principle of notions, or in the misunderstanding of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal assigning

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)