[1] Whether it constitutes dismissal in a case where a worker who has not expressed his/her intention to resign has submitted a written resignation and terminated a labor relationship (affirmative)

[2] Whether filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal after a long-term period of time after an employee received retirement allowances, etc. without reservation or condition from the employer violates the good faith principle or the good faith principle (affirmative)

[1] Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act, Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act, Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da39085 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1303) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da11554 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 2140), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1046 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1324), Supreme Court Decision 92Da3809 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192, 2363) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da8084 delivered on April 12, 191 (Gong1991, 1364) / [1364] Supreme Court Decision 200Da281989 delivered on October 29, 2095)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Cho Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na19335 delivered on September 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged that the non-party, who is a director in charge of personnel management of the defendant Corporation, submitted a resignation notice against the will of the defendant Corporation to dismiss the plaintiff on or around June 1980, and requested the plaintiff to resign from the National Security Emergency Countermeasure Committee, but the plaintiff refused to do so, and investigated the plaintiff's personal matters and attitudes over several occasions, such as the committee and the Sungnam District Security Group, and the joint checkup group belonging to Sungnam District Security Group, etc. on or around July 1980, the above committee failed to present a resignation notice to the plaintiff and the executives of the defendant Corporation ordered to dismiss the plaintiff again, and the plaintiff continued to dismiss the defendant Corporation after acceptance of the resignation notice, and the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's resignation notice against the above will of the defendant Corporation because it was aware of such circumstances, and thus, the plaintiff's resignation is null and void, and even if this did not so, the plaintiff's intention did not have any other legitimate reason to dismiss the plaintiff's dismissal as an employee.

However, even if an employer receives a written resignation from a worker and completes an employment contract by taking the form of a voluntary dismissal to accept it, if the employer forced an employee who has no intention to resign to submit a written resignation without any choice, it actually constitutes dismissal as it terminates the employment contract relationship by the employer’s unilateral intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da11554, Jul. 1, 1991; 91Da39085, Mar. 13, 1992; 91Nu1046, Mar. 13, 1992; 92Da3809, Jul. 10, 1992). Thus, the above dismissal measure constitutes dismissal regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s intention to resign constitutes an expression of intention to resign.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning does not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the dismissal of workers.

Meanwhile, barring any special circumstance, if an employee dismissed from an employer did not withhold or withhold any objection while receiving a retirement allowance, etc., the dismissal disposition is deemed to be valid, barring any special circumstance. Thus, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of dismissal after a long period of time is contrary to the good faith principle or the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da8084, Apr. 12, 1991; 90Da20428, Oct. 25, 1991; 91Da39085, Mar. 13, 1992). If the Plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the dismissal after the dismissal on July 21, 1980; and if it did not dispute the validity of the dismissal after the dismissal on August 23, 1989, it would be against the good faith principle or the good faith principle.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as seen earlier, but the conclusion that rejected the plaintiff's assertion is legitimate, and there is no influence on the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is returned to the absence of reason.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)