Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Institute of Arts, the Korea Institute of Arts, the Korea General Assembly of the Korea Institute of Education (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorney Yellow-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

January 6, 2009

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 68,115,05 won and 54,331,680 won from January 1, 2006; 13,783,375 won from March 1, 2007 to January 20, 2009; 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and 20% per annum from the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 80% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 80,721,680 won with 54,31,680 won per annum from January 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007; 80,721,680 won with 5% per annum from March 1, 2007 to the delivery date of the complaint; and 20% per annum from the next day to the payment date.

1. Determination as to the claim for unpaid money and valuables from February 2, 2002 to December 2005

The fact that the Defendant, from March 1, 2001, employed the Plaintiff and had the Plaintiff work at the High University Hospital operated by the Defendant, failed to perform the obligation to pay KRW 54,31,680, out of the money and valuables payment obligations incurred from February 1, 2002 to December 2, 2005, is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the said unpaid money and valuables and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

As to this, the defendant defense that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant on September 5, 2005 to postpone the payment of the above debt until December 31, 2020. However, the Eul evidence No. 4 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and the testimony by the non-party 2 of the witness is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above defense is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim for wages (this salary, allowances, and bonuses) from September 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1-3.

(1) Prior to the Defendant’s amendment, the Plaintiff undergone overseas training from September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006 pursuant to the Regulations on Overseas Training of Faculty Members of Medical Colleges (hereinafter “instant regulations”), and the Rules prior to the instant amendment stipulate that the full amount of benefits shall be paid only for one year of overseas training.

(2) On August 24, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for extension of overseas training (from September 1, 2006 to August 30, 2007) with the Defendant on August 24, 2006 in accordance with the bylaws prior to the instant amendment, and the Defendant approved the said application for extension on the 31st day of the same month.

(3) The Defendant revised the bylaws prior to the instant amendment, and stipulated that the full amount of benefits (the principal salary + allowances + bonuses) shall be paid for up to one year and six months for overseas training. According to the Addenda to the above amended internal rules, the above provision shall enter into force on November 6, 2006.

(4) On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff suspended overseas training and returned to Korea. The Defendant paid only the Plaintiff’s salary for one year during the Plaintiff’s training period (from September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006).

B. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff submitted the amendment of the bylaws of this case, including the content that the plaintiff shall be paid as paid for only one year and six months of overseas training, to the president of the defendant hospital on August 8, 2006, and the plaintiff also applied for extension under the knowledge of the above facts. As to the defendant's assertion that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the benefits corresponding to the period of overseas training extended for six months pursuant to the amended bylaws of this case, the defendant asserted that the defendant is obligated to pay the benefits corresponding to the period of overseas training extended for six months pursuant to the amended rules of this case, the approval of the application for the extension of overseas training was made pursuant to the previous regulations of this case, and therefore, the defendant

C. Determination

In light of the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the bylaws in this case are deemed to correspond to the rules of employment, and as long as the above rules of employment are not modified disadvantageous to workers, it is reasonable to apply to workers who work as at the time of its enforcement, but there are no other transitional provisions, etc., the mere fact that the relevant worker was aware of the amendment in advance, or that the application for the extension and the approval were made after the proposal was submitted, shall not be retroactively applied.

Therefore, as to the period from November 6, 2006, the enforcement date of the bylaws amended in this case to February 28, 2007 (115 days) during which the Plaintiff’s total overseas training period does not exceed one year and six months, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the full amount of benefits (the principal salary + allowances + bonuses) in accordance with the above amended internal rules.

Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the average wage for the three months from June 2006 to August 2, 2006 is KRW 4,398,336. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the average wage for the above period is recognized as KRW 3,645,603 [=(3,780,370 + + KRW 3,565,970 + + KRW 3,590,470 + KRW 3,590] 】 1/3, and the above amount is less than KRW 1/3]. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion in excess of the above amount is without merit.

Ultimately, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 13,783,375 won (=3,645,603 won x 12/365 x 115 days) and damages for delay.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 68,115,05 won (=54,31,680 won + 13,783,375 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from March 1, 2007 to January 20, 209, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the scope of unpaid money and valuables as well as 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, with respect to the plaintiff's claim of this case within the scope of the above recognition, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the remainder is without merit, and the order and the decision are dismissed.

Judges Park Jin-ro