[Plaintiffs, Appellants]
[Defendant, Appellee] National Agricultural Cooperative Federation
[Judgment Below] Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na5338 rendered on April 17, 1997
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.
[Reasoning]
The Plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Grounds 1, 2, and 4 are examined together.
As argued in the Plaintiffs' brief, even where there has been a change in the form of work provided (job category or job classification) during the period of continuous service, such as in a case where a person was employed as a temporary employee, worked in that capacity, and was then employed as a regular employee midway through, continuing to work without any gap, the period combining the service period as a temporary employee and the service period as a regular employee should be regarded as the continuous years of service that form the basis for calculating retirement allowance. However, where there has been a change in job classification in the middle of the continuous service period, and the retirement allowance payment rate differs depending on the job classification, if the employment rules (취업규칙) or collective agreement contains provisions concerning the method of calculating retirement allowance in such a case, and those provisions do not violate Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), then it is lawful to calculate retirement allowance in accordance with those provisions (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da26168 rendered on July 11, 1995).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, having found the facts stated in its judgment based on the evidence it cited, determined on that basis that, in the case of the Defendant Federation, which is a workplace where the retirement allowance payment rate differs according to job classification, there exist provisions in the employment rules or collective agreement concerning the method of calculating retirement allowance in connection with a change of job classification during the period of continuous service, and further that the payment of retirement allowance in accordance with each of the above provisions does not violate Article 28, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the court below determined that it was justified for the Defendant to calculate the retirement allowance for the Plaintiffs' periods of service as gaecheokwon (개척원, a type of employee) or temporary employees in accordance with the above provisions. Upon examination of the record, the above determination of the court below is deemed reasonable and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any illegality therein, such as a determination contrary to the Supreme Court precedent asserted in the brief.
The Supreme Court precedent cited in the brief concerns facts different from those of this case, and thus it is not appropriate to invoke it in this case.
Furthermore, it cannot be said that there was any illegality, as asserted in the brief, in the fact that the court below determined the purport of the Defendant's regulations concerning retirement allowance based on materials showing that, ever since the Defendant enacted the Regulations on Retirement Benefits and Disaster Compensation for Agricultural Cooperative Employees (농업협동조합직원퇴직급여및재해보상규정), gaecheokwon and temporary employees such as the Plaintiffs had consistently been excluded from the category of regular employees subject to said regulations, and that, accordingly, under the fund system, the retirement benefit contributions were also required to be paid only for regular employees, such that the Defendant only began paying retirement benefit contributions for the Plaintiffs after they were appointed as regular employees. This ground of appeal is without merit.
2. As to Ground 3
In light of the record and the contents of the relevant statutory provisions, the measure of the court below, which rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendant's regulations concerning retirement allowance, being regulations unilaterally enacted by the Defendant without the consent of the employees, violated the principle of equality of employees, the equal treatment provisions set forth in the Labor Standards Act, or the legal principle of prohibition of discriminatory treatment of employees, is justified, and there is no illegality therein as asserted in the brief. This ground of appeal is without merit.
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Shin Seong-taek (Presiding Justice), Cheon Gyeong-song (Justice in charge), Ji Chang-gwon, Song Jin-hun