[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Hyo-jong, Counsel for the Plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellee] Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials, an incorporated foundation (Attorney Seo Ye-gyo, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 98Na2893 rendered on November 18, 1999
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined as follows.
1. As to Grounds 2 and 4
In principle, it is not permissible for an employer to unilaterally deprive workers of vested rights or interests through the unilateral drafting or amendment of new rules of employment, thereby imposing disadvantageous working conditions. However, where the drafting or amendment of the rules of employment in question, considering both the necessity therefor and the content thereof, together with the degree of disadvantage that workers would suffer as a result, is nevertheless recognized as having reasonableness in light of social norms to such an extent that the legal normative nature of the provision in question can be affirmed, the application thereof cannot be denied merely on the ground that there was no consent obtained through the collective decision-making method of the workers who had been subject to the previous working conditions or rules of employment. Meanwhile, the existence of such reasonableness in light of social norms should be determined by comprehensively considering the degree of disadvantage suffered by workers due to the amendment of the rules of employment, the content and degree of the necessity for amendment on the employer's part, the appropriateness of the content of the amended rules of employment, the state of improvement of other working conditions including compensatory measures, the process of negotiation with labor unions, etc., the response of labor unions or other workers, and the general domestic circumstances regarding similar matters, among other factors.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, having comprehensively considered the evidence adopted in its judgment and found the facts stated therein, held as follows: Although it is true that the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of March 6, 1980 of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research (hereinafter referred to only as "Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research"), an incorporated foundation, were disadvantageous in terms of the payment rate compared to the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of January 1, 1970 of the Korea Precision Instruments Center (hereinafter referred to only as "Korea Precision Instruments Center"), an incorporated foundation, in light of the following circumstances: at the time the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of March 6, 1980 of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research were established, there was a high necessity to reconcile the differing retirement allowance payment rates between employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center and existing employees of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research, and to establish uniform retirement allowance payment regulations; the mandatory retirement age of employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center was extended by as much as ten years, from 55 to 65, following the merger, such that they continued to work for the extended period while receiving wages corresponding thereto; other working conditions were improved following the merger, in that the wages of employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center were increased and their pay grades were adjusted before and after the merger, thereby increasing the wages that served as the basis for calculating retirement allowances, and thereby the disadvantage arising from the reduction in the retirement allowance payment rate was considerably mitigated; and prior to the merger, employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center, including the Plaintiff, formally retired from the Korea Precision Instruments Center and received, without objection, retirement allowances calculated based on the increased wages and the previous higher retirement allowance payment rate, from which it may be presumed that, at the time of the merger, the employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center, including the Plaintiff, anticipated that the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research to be established in the future would apply to them. In light of these overall circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of March 6, 1980 of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research had such reasonableness in light of social norms as to obviate the need to obtain consent through the collective decision-making method of the employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center, and accordingly, the court below determined that these Regulations apply also to the employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center, including the Plaintiff.
Examining this in light of the legal principles set forth above and the record, the above determination of the court below is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any error of law in misapprehending the legal principles regarding the existence of reasonableness in light of social norms, or any failure to exhaust deliberation thereon. The Supreme Court Decision 95Da41659 rendered on December 26, 1995, cited in the grounds of appeal, did not make any determination regarding the existence of reasonableness in light of social norms in connection with the amendment of rules of employment, and therefore it cannot be said that the court below made a determination contrary to Supreme Court precedent. This part of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted in its entirety.
2. As to Grounds 1 and 3
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is clear that the court below did not determine that the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of March 6, 1980 of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research were not disadvantageous compared to the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of January 1, 1970 of the Korea Precision Instruments Center; rather, the court below merely determined that, although the Regulations were disadvantageous in terms of the payment rate, they had reasonableness in light of social norms, and could therefore be applied to the employees who came from the Korea Precision Instruments Center even without consent obtained through their collective decision-making method. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the judgment below erred in mistakenly determining that the establishment of the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations of March 6, 1980 of the Korea Institute of Machinery and Metals Testing Research did not constitute a disadvantageous amendment. Furthermore, inasmuch as the determination of the court below recognizing the reasonableness in light of social norms of the said Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations is justified, any alleged error of law regarding the court below's additional determination as to whether consent was obtained through the collective decision-making method of the workers does not constitute a lawful ground of appeal. This part of the grounds of appeal also cannot be accepted in its entirety.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the Plaintiff, the appellant, with all participating Justices concurring, as set forth in the Order.
Justice Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice), Cho Mu-je, Kang Shin-wook, Lee Kang-kook (Justice in Charge)