Standard for determining whether a dismissal disposition by a member of the board of directors constitutes dismissal / Whether the expression constitutes an intentional expression of intent in a case where the expression of intent was not expressed in a genuine mind, but it was judged to be the best (negative)

Article 107 of the Civil Act, Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60528 Delivered on April 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1160) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da11458 Delivered on April 25, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1254)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Definition, Attorneys Song Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

O2D Co., Ltd. (Bae & Yang LLC, Attorneys Hap Hong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2021951 decided March 20, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where an employer receives a resignation from an employee and has an employee who has no intention to resign prepare and submit a resignation document inevitably, if the employer had the employee prepare and submit a resignation document, the employment contract is terminated by the employer’s unilateral intent. However, unless otherwise, the employment contract relationship between the employer and the employee is terminated by the agreement upon the employer’s acceptance of the intention of resignation upon the submission of the resignation, and thus the employer’s dismissal of the employee is terminated by the agreement. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60528, Apr. 11, 2003, etc.), the employer’s dismissal of the employee cannot be deemed as dismissal of the employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60528, Apr. 11, 2003). The expression of intention refers to the expression of intention of the voter who intends to express a specific expression of intention, and thus, it does not mean that it is the expression of intention under the circumstances at the time. Thus, even if it is not the expression of intention, it cannot be deemed as the expression of intention.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, each of the evidence in the judgment below is insufficient to recognize that the executive officers of the defendant company forced resignation by notifying the harm and injury to the freedom of decision-making to the extent that they threaten the plaintiff to disclose the privacy of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts as stated in the judgment. Rather, even if the executive officers of the defendant company demanded the preparation of a resignation in accordance with the contents of the pre-written resignation, they must respond to the demand of the plaintiff to refuse the preparation of the resignation and dispute over the grounds for the disciplinary procedure. The plaintiff argued that the reason for the preparation and submission of the resignation in the application for unfair dismissal and relief was more desirable to re-employment than that of the defendant at the time of the submission of the above application for resignation, and that the plaintiff considered it as a general recommendation office which does not suffer any disadvantage in re-employment, and that the part of the reasons for resignation, which was stated in the above application for resignation, did not meet the conditions agreed upon at the time of the plaintiff's resignation or re-employment, and that the plaintiff's submission of the resignation document was not accepted after the plaintiff's resignation.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the declaration of intent by duress, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)