[1] The method of expressing intent

[2] The case holding that the disclosure of the list of persons subject to renewal cannot be deemed as an offer for renewal of a contract only when the contract term expires

[3] The case holding that an employment contract was implicitly renewed in case where a worker continues to provide labor and an employer did not raise an objection for about two months after the expiration of the contract term

[4] Whether an individual employment contract containing the working conditions rules constitutes the rules of employment (affirmative)

[5] In a case where there is no procedure provision regarding dismissal under the rules of employment, whether the dismissal can be notified verbally without special procedure of dismissal (affirmative)

[6] The validity of dismissal without giving prior notice of dismissal (affirmative)

[1] The expression of intent to subscribe should be specific and conclusive to the extent that the contract can be concluded immediately if the expression of intent is accepted.

[2] The case holding that the disclosure of the list of persons subject to renewal cannot be deemed as an offer for renewal of a contract only when the contract term expires

[3] The case holding that the employment contract was implicitly renewed in case where a worker continues to provide labor after the expiration of the contract term and an employer did not raise an objection for about two months

[4] The rules of employment under Article 94 of the former Labor Standards Act (repealed by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997) is merely named, if the rules of employment contain the contents of the working conditions such as service regulations and wages. Thus, if an individual labor contract contains the above rules of working conditions, it also constitutes the rules of employment.

[5] In a case where there is no procedural provision such as holding a personnel committee at the time of dismissal or giving an opportunity to vindicate in an individual employment contract falling under the rules of employment, the procedural errors by unilaterally notifying the dismissal without following such procedure are not made.

[6] Even if the dismissal did not pre-announce the dismissal, it does not affect the validity of the dismissal as long as the dismissal has legitimate grounds.

[1] Article 527 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 527 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 662 (1) of the Civil Act / [4] Article 94 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see Article 96 of the current Act) / [5] Article 27 of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) (see Article 30 of the current Act) / [6] Article 27-2 (see Article 32 of the current Act) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da29696 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3137) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da32507 delivered on October 22, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3157) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 91Da30828 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1161), Supreme Court Decision 96Da24699 delivered on March 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1131) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 93Da26496 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong194, 298Nu94979 delivered on April 196, 195) / [196Nu949799 delivered on July 196, 1995

[Judgment of the court below]

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

MBC Art Group Co., Ltd. (Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu35325 delivered on July 18, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to whether to conclude a re-contract

The court below held that on March 1, 1994, the plaintiff entered into an exclusive contract with the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "the intervenor") for one year, and continued to enter into the same contract with the defendant's team representative for one year as of March 1, 1995, which was operated by the intervenor, and the plaintiff was notified of the plaintiff on February 26, 1996 as the subject of the re-contract at the time when the contract period expires, but did not enter into the re-contract with the plaintiff at April 26 of the same year, but the plaintiff was notified of the fact that the contract is not reasonable, and accordingly, the plaintiff was withdrawn on April 30 of the same year, and the plaintiff immediately removed the issue of the selection of the subject of the re-contract, and the intervenor can withdraw the selection of the subject of the re-contract until the conclusion of the re-contract, so it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was the subject of the re-contract with the plaintiff and the intervenor.

The expression of intent to subscribe should be specific and conclusive to the extent that the contract can be concluded immediately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da29696, Oct. 13, 1992; 93Da32507, Oct. 22, 1993; 93Da32507, Oct. 22, 1993). In the records, the intervenor's notice posted by the intervenor is merely the appointment of the member in the name as the subject of the re-contract in 1996, and it does not contain specific matters that can be the subject of the contract. In fact, the intervenor's notice of the list of the subject of the re-contract including the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the offer of the re-contract to the plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff has accepted the intervenor's offer by continuing to work, and the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the renewal of the contract

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s continued service while the Plaintiff’s rescission was postponed for two months, based on the continuous relationship between the strike of the labor union and the president’s withdrawal movement, etc. commenced from February 1996 from the Non-Party Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd., the Intervenor, the mother company of the Intervenor, was not able to determine the level of wages, such as the exclusive remuneration of the union members, which was commenced from the beginning of February 1996, and it was not possible for the Intervenor to conclude the contract until the expiration of the contract term, and that such circumstance was known that all the members of the Non-Party, including the Plaintiff, were aware of the expiration of the contract term. The lower court determined that the contract between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was not implicitly renewed, and that the labor relationship between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor was terminated due to the expiration of the contract term.

However, in light of the fact that the strike situation, etc. required by the court below is merely an intervenor's internal situation, and the intervenor publicly announced the plaintiff as the subject of re-contract three days before the expiration of the contract term, it cannot be deemed that there is no evidence to deem that the intervenor suspended his objection to the plaintiff's continued service by notifying the plaintiff of the postponement of the re-contract, etc. on the record, and thus, insofar as the plaintiff continued to provide labor after the expiration of the contract term and did not raise any objection against the provision of labor for two months or longer, it shall be deemed that the exclusive contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor was implicitly renewed pursuant to Article 662 (1) of the Civil Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the contract between the plaintiff and the intervenor cannot be deemed to have been implicitly renewed is a result of misunderstanding the legal principles on implied renewal of an employment contract, or misunderstanding the legal principles on implied renewal of an employment contract. However, on the other hand, the court below, on the other hand, determined that the dismissal is legitimate even if the intervenor's refusal to conclude a renewal contract against the plaintiff was dismissed, so the employment contract in this case between the plaintiff and the intervenor was lawfully terminated, and as seen below, should be deemed to have been terminated by the dismissal, and the conclusion is justifiable, so the above error of the court below did not affect the judgment, and thus, it cannot be justified to accept this part of the grounds for appeal.

3. As to dismissal

In this case, the Intervenor was unable to conclude a re-contract with the Plaintiff on April 26, 1996, which was after the renewal of the exclusive contract, and the termination of the labor relationship with the Plaintiff constitutes a unilateral termination of the exclusive contract by the Intervenor.

As to the ground for dismissal, the lower court determined that dismissal of the Plaintiff was justifiable on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes a case where the Plaintiff was in violation of the duty of good faith under the exclusive contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, and was attributable to the Plaintiff to the extent that it could not maintain a labor relationship by social norms, in light of the characteristics of the good faith group where the Plaintiff should be in harmony between the conductor and the principal, and thus, the Plaintiff took part in the promotional movement of the head of the Maak-dong group as well as some members from the time of termination of the employment relationship after February 1996, the Plaintiff refused to participate in the promotional movement of the head of the Maak-dong group; the Plaintiff was taking part in the command of the head of the Maak-dong group as the conductor; the Plaintiff took part in the demonstration;

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct.

In addition, the rules of employment under Article 94 of the former Labor Standards Act (repealed by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997) refers to the name of a member if the rules on working conditions, such as service discipline and wages, are included, and it also constitutes the rules of employment (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da30828, Feb. 28, 1992; 97Da24511, Nov. 28, 1997; 97Da24511, Nov. 28, 1997). In concluding an exclusive contract with the malicious members, the member must contribute exclusively to all the projects required by the intervenor and shall not interfere with the intervenor's business (Article 1, 3). Thus, the intervenor cannot make contributions other than the affairs ordered by the intervenor without the intervenor's approval (Article 8). The intervenor's voluntary dismissal of the terms of the contract can not be seen as an exclusive contract under the rules of employment without the plaintiff's consent.

On the other hand, even if the dismissal did not pre-announce the dismissal, it does not affect the validity of the dismissal unless the dismissal has a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2015 delivered on June 14, 1994).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held that the labor relationship with the plaintiff was terminated without contract renewal or not terminated without contract renewal is eventually justifiable and it is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment, and this part of the ground of appeal is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)