The case holding that the existing employment contract relationship was terminated at that time, if an employee retires and receives retirement allowances from the company and receives retirement allowances and receives retirement allowances from the date of re-admission after undergoing the procedure of re-admission, and received the adjusted payment of retirement allowances up to that time.

When Gap company's business part is transferred to Eul company's business part, if Gap company's employee retires from Eul company and receives retirement benefits, and then retires from Eul company without receiving the time retirement benefits, it shall be deemed that the existing employment contract relationship is valid if Gap company's employee's retirement should be calculated from the date of retirement, or if Gap company's employee's retirement is distributed to decide whether to receive retirement benefits corresponding to the number of years of service added up to the period of service in Gap company's employment without receiving the time retirement benefits.

Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1984, 1283, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Suwon Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Incheon District Court Decision 89Na5409 delivered on October 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while the plaintiff was employed for the non-party Electric Cable Co., Ltd. on June 5, 1970 and was employed for the non-party company on February 5, 1983, the non-party company's electronic and industrial equipment business division was transferred to the defendant company from February 28, 1989 and retired from office on February 28, 1989, the plaintiff was at the time of business takeover from the defendant company, and the above non-party company or the defendant company was transferred to receive retirement allowances from the above non-party company or the defendant company at the time of the above transfer of business takeover, and the plaintiff did not receive retirement allowances from the date of the transfer of business takeover, or did not receive retirement allowances from the date of retirement after the retirement without receiving the retirement allowances from the time to the date of retirement, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the continuous employment period in the non-party company's company's employment contract relations between the plaintiff and the defendant company.

(2) The court below denied and rejected the existence of the above practice as to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant company paid to retired workers by the year 1988 a total sum of the period of work between the non-party company and the defendant company regardless of the receipt of retirement allowance in the year 1983, and this was a practice of binding the defendant company. The defendant company's measures that do not add the period of work of the non-party company to the non-party company only did not go against the above practice and the rules of good faith are against the above practice. In light of the records, the court below's above measures are acceptable and it cannot be

(3) Even though there was no agreement on the issue of the payment of retirement allowances between the non-party company and the non-party company trade union, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's retirement by self-employed on February 28, 1983 is valid, and thus no effect is affected by the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the appeal that there was no agreement between the non-party company and the non-party company trade union on the issue of the payment of retirement allowances to the employees transferred from the non-party company, and therefore there was no agreement between the non-party company and the labor union.

(4) 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.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)