Workbear재주넘는곰
한국어 Log in Sign up free
◉ Workbear case detail — 대법원 97다14934 · https://workbear.kr/precedents/2431 · Viewed 2026-10-27
대법원 97다14934

Severance Pay Case (Korea Expressway Corporation)퇴직금

Decided1997. 07. 11. Court대법원Case reversed and remanded (파기환송) — lower court's ruling overturned, sent back for reconsideration in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation
한국어·Print
AI-generated English translation (summary, key points, decision summary and full text) for reference only — not an official translation and without legal effect. The Korean original below is authoritative.
AI Easy read — AI summary of this decision
AI-generated summary for reference only — the Korean original below is authoritative.

This case arose when Korea Expressway Corporation unilaterally changed its severance pay (퇴직금) regulations for general staff in a way that disadvantaged employees, without obtaining their consent. The key issue was determining which severance pay system should apply once the law prohibiting differential severance pay systems (퇴직금차등제도 금지 규정) took effect. The Supreme Court (대법원) reversed and remanded the lower court's decision, ruling that the amended employment rules (취업규칙) still carried binding legal force, and that the severance pay system applicable to the largest group of employees must be applied uniformly to all employees.

Key takeaways
  • CaseKorea Expressway Corporation changed its severance pay rules for general staff in a way that disadvantaged employees, without obtaining their consent.
  • OutcomeThe Supreme Court ruled that the amended employment rules still had legal effect, and that the severance pay system applied to the majority of employees must be applied to the entire workforce.
  • LessonEven disadvantageous changes to employment rules made without employee consent can carry legal force, so employers must obtain employee consent when amending employment rules (취업규칙).
Issues
  • The binding effect (기속력) of a reversal-and-remand judgment on subsequent proceedings
  • The legal validity of employment rules (취업규칙) that are amended disadvantageously without employee consent
  • Which severance pay (퇴직금) system should apply once the prohibition on differential severance pay systems took effect
Key reasoning

Even when an employer amends employment rules (취업규칙) in a manner disadvantageous to employees without their consent, the amended rules still retain binding legal effect as the currently governing regulations. This is because employment rules function as a form of quasi-legal norm within the workplace, regardless of whether individual employee consent was obtained. Therefore, when the statutory prohibition on differential severance pay systems (퇴직금차등제도 금지 규정) came into force, the severance pay system that applied to the majority of employees was to be treated as the single governing system for the entire workforce. The Supreme Court found that the lower court erred by failing to properly apply this principle, and thus reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

[1] A court which has had a case remanded to it from the court of final appeal is, in adjudicating that case, bound by the factual and legal determinations that formed the grounds for reversal by the appellate court, unless new allegations or evidence are submitted in the course of the proceedings after remand such that the factual relationship forming the basis of the binding determination is changed.

[2] Since the authority to prepare and amend the rules of employment (취업규칙) resides in principle with the employer, the employer may prepare and amend the rules of employment according to its own intention, and even if the employer amends the rules of employment disadvantageously to the employees without obtaining the consent of the employees through a method of collective decision-making by the employee group, such amendment of the rules of employment is nonetheless valid, so that the rules of employment currently having the effect of law are the amended rules of employment; accordingly, the amended rules of employment apply to employees who entered into an employment relationship after the amendment, while only as to existing employees whose vested interests would be infringed does the former rules of employment apply.

[3] Where an enterprise that operated a retirement allowance system with differing payment rates for general-service employees and specially-appointed employees amended, on January 1, 1981, without obtaining the consent of the employee group through a method of collective decision-making, the retirement allowance provisions applicable to general-service employees—to which a high progressive rate had previously applied—in a manner disadvantageous compared to before, then, since the authority to prepare and amend the rules of employment lies with the employer, the rules of employment currently having the effect of law are the amended rules of employment, and the rules of employment are validly amended even in relation to the existing general-service employees. Therefore, as of April 1, 1981, with respect to general-service employees, due to the amendment of the rules of employment, only the retirement allowance provisions as amended on January 1, 1981 constitute the retirement allowance system having the effect of law; and even though, as to general-service employees who joined before January 1, 1981, applying the January 1, 1981 amended retirement allowance provisions would result in infringing their vested interests such that the amended provisions of January 1, 1981 cannot be applied to them and the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions must instead be applied, the pre-amendment retirement allowance provisions cannot be deemed a "retirement allowance system." Accordingly, as of April 1, 1981, when Article 28(2) of the former Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) (as amended by Act No. 3349 of December 31, 1980) came into effect, the above enterprise was operating both a retirement allowance system applicable to specially-appointed employees and a retirement allowance system based on the January 1, 1981 amended retirement allowance provisions, which had the effect of law as to general-service employees. Since, pursuant to Article 28(2) and Paragraph 2 of the Addenda of the former Labor Standards Act, a system of differential retirement allowances has been prohibited from April 1, 1981, and the retirement allowance system applicable to the greatest number of employees is to apply as the retirement allowance system within the relevant enterprise, in calculating the retirement allowance for specially-appointed employees, one must compare the number of general-service employees and specially-appointed employees as of April 1, 1981, and where the general-service employees are the majority, the retirement allowance provisions for general-service employees as amended on January 1, 1981 must also be applied to the specially-appointed employees, who are the minority.

Full text (English, AI translation) 10,774 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee]

[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Expressway Corporation (Attorneys Lee Young-jun and 1 other, Counsel for the defendant)
[Remand Judgment] Supreme Court Decision 95Da15414 delivered on September 10, 1996

[Order]

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Suwon District Court.

[Reasoning]

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A court to which a case has been remanded from the appellate court is bound, in adjudicating that case, by the factual and legal determinations made by the appellate court as grounds for reversal, unless the factual basis underlying such binding determination has changed as a result of new allegations or evidence submitted in the course of the proceedings following remand (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da49233 delivered on February 28, 1997). Further, since the authority to prepare and amend the rules of employment (취업규칙) rests, in principle, with the employer, the employer may prepare and amend the rules of employment according to its own intention. Even where an amendment to the rules of employment is disadvantageous to employees, if the employer amends the rules without obtaining the consent of the employees through a collective decision-making method, the amendment is nevertheless valid, and the rules of employment currently having normative effect are the amended rules of employment. Accordingly, the amended rules of employment apply to employees who commenced their employment relationship after the amendment, while only the previous rules of employment apply to existing employees whose vested interests would otherwise be infringed (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da45165 delivered on December 22, 1992).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found as follows: the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Corporation on March 16, 1976 as a special-grade employee (별정직 직원) and worked until retiring on December 31, 1990; even before the Plaintiff joined, the Defendant Corporation had a rule providing that, with respect to retirement allowances, special-grade employees would be paid one month's average monthly wage for each year of service (hereinafter "the Special-Grade Retirement Allowance Rule"), while general-grade employees (일반직 직원) would be paid a retirement allowance calculated by multiplying the monthly salary at the time of retirement by a progressive rate that increased steeply according to years of service, with "monthly salary" defined as the average monthly wage at the time of retirement (hereinafter "the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule"); on January 1, 1981, without obtaining the consent of the employees through a collective decision-making method, the Defendant Corporation amended the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule—while maintaining the basic method of calculating the retirement allowance by multiplying the monthly salary by a retirement allowance rate, it lowered the progressive rate and narrowed the scope of "monthly salary," thereby amending and enforcing the rule disadvantageously as against existing general-grade employees (hereinafter "the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule"); and Article 2 of the Addenda to that amended rule provided a transitional provision to the effect that, in calculating the retirement allowance of employees in service at the time the amended rule took effect, the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule would apply to the period of service up to December 31, 1980, while the amended rule would apply to the period of service from and after January 1, 1981. The court below further found that, as of April 1, 1981, among special-grade employees, general-grade employees who had joined before January 1, 1981, and general-grade employees who had joined on or after January 1, 1981, the general-grade employees who had joined before January 1, 1981 constituted the largest group.

Based on these findings, the court below held that, because Article 2 of the Addenda to the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule prescribed a retirement allowance system separate from the main text, it could not be said that, as of April 1, 1981, the Defendant Corporation was operating only two retirement allowance systems—namely, the system applicable to special-grade employees and the system under the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule having normative effect as to general-grade employees. The court below further held that, since where the rules of employment are disadvantageously amended without the consent of employees through a collective decision-making method, the former rules of employment apply to existing employees while the amended rules apply to employees who joined after the amendment, as of April 1, 1981 the Defendant Corporation was operating, as retirement allowance systems, the Special-Grade Retirement Allowance Rule, the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule, and the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule; and since the general-grade employees who had joined before January 1, 1981 constituted the largest group, pursuant to Article 28(2) and Paragraph 2 of the Addenda of the former Labor Standards Act (Act No. 3349, amended December 31, 1980, before its repeal by Act No. 5305, March 13, 1997; hereinafter the same), the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule should apply to all employees from April 1, 1981.

3. However, even granting that Article 2 of the Addenda to the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule contains the provision as found by the court below, this is merely a transitional provision and cannot be regarded as a separate retirement allowance system distinct from the main text. (If it were regarded as a separate retirement allowance system, then even where a retirement allowance rule is disadvantageously amended with the consent of employees obtained through a collective decision-making method, providing a transitional provision applying the former rule to the prior period of service would be impermissible as violating the prohibition against differential retirement allowance systems; such a conclusion would be unwarranted.)

On the other hand, according to the record, the reasoning of this Court's remand judgment in this case was as follows, consistent with the legal principles set forth above: even though the Defendant Corporation disadvantageously amended the retirement allowance rule applicable to general-grade employees on January 1, 1981 without obtaining the consent of the employees through a collective decision-making method, since the authority to prepare and amend the rules of employment rests with the employer, the rules of employment currently having normative effect are the amended rules of employment, and the amendment is validly effective even as against existing general-grade employees. Accordingly, as of April 1, 1981, due to this amendment of the rules of employment, only the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule had normative effect as the retirement allowance system applicable to the Defendant Corporation's general-grade employees. Even though, as to general-grade employees who had joined before January 1, 1981, applying the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule would result in the infringement of their vested interests, such that the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule could not be applied to them and the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule would instead apply, the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule cannot be regarded as a "retirement allowance system" (and therefore does not constitute a "differential retirement allowance system" prohibited under Article 28(2) of the former Labor Standards Act). Accordingly, as of April 1, 1981, when Article 28(2) of the former Labor Standards Act took effect, the Defendant Corporation was operating the retirement allowance system applicable to special-grade employees and the retirement allowance system under the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule, which had normative effect as to general-grade employees. Since, pursuant to Article 28(2) and Paragraph 2 of the Addenda of the former Labor Standards Act, differential retirement allowance systems have been prohibited from April 1, 1981, and the retirement allowance system applicable to the largest number of employees is to apply as the retirement allowance system within the relevant business, in calculating the Plaintiff's retirement allowance, the number of general-grade employees should be compared with the number of special-grade employees as of April 1, 1981, and if general-grade employees constitute the majority, the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule should be applied. This was the content of the remand judgment, and the court below, in adjudicating this case, is bound by this Court's aforementioned remand judgment unless new allegations or evidence were submitted in the course of the proceedings following remand such that the factual basis underlying the binding determination has changed.

Nevertheless, the court below, under the same factual circumstances—namely, that the Defendant Corporation disadvantageously amended the retirement allowance rule applicable to general-grade employees on January 1, 1981 without obtaining the consent of the employees through a collective decision-making method—held, contrary to the aforementioned legal principles and the remand judgment, that as of April 1, 1981, the Defendant Corporation was operating, as retirement allowance systems, the Special-Grade Retirement Allowance Rule, the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule applicable to existing general-grade employees, and the January 1, 1981 Amended Retirement Allowance Rule applicable to general-grade employees who joined after the amendment, and further held that the Pre-Amendment Retirement Allowance Rule, as the retirement allowance system applicable to the largest number of employees, would apply to all employees from April 1, 1981. This constitutes a determination contrary to the judgment set forth by this Court as the grounds for reversal when remanding the case, and cannot but be deemed an error of misapprehending the legal principles concerning the effect of a disadvantageous amendment to the rules of employment made without the consent of employees through a collective decision-making method.

4. Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination, this being the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision, as set forth in the Order.

Justice Cheon Gyeong-song (Presiding Justice), Justice Ji Chang-gwon, Justice Shin Seong-taek (Justice in charge), Justice Song Jin-hun

【판결요지】

[1] 상고심으로부터 사건을 환송받은 법원은 그 사건을 재판함에 있어서 상고법원이 파기이유로 한 사실상·법률상의 판단에 대하여 환송 후의 심리과정에서 새로운 주장이나 입증이 제출되어 기속적 판단의 기초가 된 사실관계에 변동이 생기지 않는 한 이에 기속된다.

[2] 취업규칙의 작성·변경의 권한은 원칙적으로 사용자에게 있으므로 사용자는 그 의사에 따라 취업규칙을 작성·변경할 수 있고, 취업규칙의 변경이 근로자에게 불이익함에도 불구하고 사용자가 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니한 채 변경을 하였다고 하더라도 취업규칙의 변경은 유효하여 현행의 법규적 효력을 가진 취업규칙은 변경된 취업규칙이라 할 것이므로, 그 변경 후에 근로관계를 갖게 된 근로자에 대하여는 변경된 취업규칙이 적용되고, 다만 기득이익을 침해하게 되는 기존의 근로자에 대하여는 종전의 취업규칙이 적용될 뿐이다.

[3] 일반직 직원과 별정직 직원에 대하여 상이한 지급률을 가진 퇴직금 제도를 운용하던 기업체가 1981. 1. 1. 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의 없이 고율의 누진율을 적용하던 일반직 직원에 대한 퇴직금 규정을 종전에 비해 불이익하게 변경하였다고 하더라도 취업규칙의 작성·변경권이 사용자에게 있는 이상 현행의 법규적 효력을 가진 취업규칙은 변경된 취업규칙으로서 기존 일반직 직원에 대한 관계에서도 취업규칙은 유효하게 변경되는 것이라고 할 것이므로, 1981. 4. 1. 당시 일반직 직원에 대하여는 취업규칙의 변경으로 인하여 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정만이 법규적 효력을 가지는 퇴직금 제도이고, 비록 1981. 1. 1. 이전에 입사한 일반직 직원에 대하여 기득이익을 침해하는 결과로 되어 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용할 수 없고 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 적용하게 된다고 하더라도 개정 전 퇴직금 규정은 퇴직금 제도라고 할 수 없어서 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 개정된 것) 제28조 제2항이 시행된 1981. 4. 1. 당시 위 기업체에는 별정직 직원에 대하여 적용되는 퇴직금 제도와 일반직 직원에 대하여 법규적 효력을 가지는 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정에 따른 퇴직금 제도가 시행되고 있었다 할 것인데, 구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항, 부칙 제2항에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터 퇴직금차등제도가 금지되고 최다수 근로자에게 적용되는 퇴직금 제도가 당해 사업 내의 퇴직금 제도로 적용되므로 별정직 근로자에 대한 퇴직금을 산정함에 있어서는 1981. 4. 1. 당시의 일반직 직원과 별정직 직원의 수를 비교하여 본 후 일반직 직원이 다수일 경우에는 소수인 별정직 직원에게도 1981. 1. 1. 개정된 일반직 퇴직금 규정을 적용하여야 한다.

【참조조문】

[1] 법원조직법 제8조

[2] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제28조, 제95조 제1항

[3] 구 근로기준법(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5309호로 제정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제1항, 제2항, 제95조 제1항, 부칙(1980. 12. 31.) 제2항

【참조판례】

[1] 대법원 1991. 1. 15. 선고 90누4556 판결(공1991, 765), 대법원 1997. 2. 28. 선고 95다49233 판결(공1997상, 895) /[2][3] 대법원 1996. 12. 23. 선고 95다32631 판결(공1997상, 482), 대법원 1997. 7. 11. 선고 96다45399 판결(공1997하, 2477) /[2] 대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 91다45165 전원합의체 판결(공1993상, 546), 대법원 1996. 9. 10. 선고 96다3241 판결(공1996하, 2996)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 4,009자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고,피상고인】

【피고,상고인】 한국도로공사 (소송대리인 변호사 이영준 외 1인)

【환송판결】 대법원 1996. 9. 10. 선고 95다15414 판결

【주문】

원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 수원지방법원 합의부에 환송한다.

【이유】 상고이유를 판단한다.

1. 상고심으로부터 사건을 환송받은 법원은 그 사건을 재판함에 있어서 상고법원이 파기이유로 한 사실상 및 법률상의 판단에 대하여 환송 후의 심리과정에서 새로운 주장이나 입증이 제출되어 기속적 판단의 기초가 된 사실관계에 변동이 생기지 않는 한 이에 기속된다 할 것이고( 대법원 1997. 2. 28. 선고 95다49233 판결 참조), 취업규칙의 작성·변경의 권한은 원칙적으로 사용자에게 있으므로 사용자는 그 의사에 따라 취업규칙을 작성·변경할 수 있고, 취업규칙의 변경이 근로자에게 불이익함에도 불구하고 사용자가 근로자의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의를 얻지 아니한 채 변경을 하였다고 하더라도 취업규칙의 변경은 유효하여 현행의 법규적 효력을 가진 취업규칙은 변경된 취업규칙이라 할 것이므로, 그 변경 후에 근로관계를 갖게 된 근로자에 대하여는 변경된 취업규칙이 적용되고, 다만 기득이익을 침해하게 되는 기존의 근로자에 대하여는 종전의 취업규칙이 적용될 뿐이라 할 것이다( 대법원 1992. 12. 22. 선고 91다45165 전원합의체 판결 참조).

2. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 원고는 1976. 3. 16. 피고 공사에 별정직 직원으로 입사하여 근무하다가 1990. 12. 31. 퇴직하였는데, 피고 공사는 원고의 입사 전부터 퇴직금 지급에 관하여 별정직 직원에 대하여는 재직기간 1년에 대하여 1개월분의 월평균임금을 지급하는 규정을 두고(이하 별정직 퇴직금 규정이라 한다), 일반직 직원에 대하여는 퇴직 당시의 월봉에 재직년수에 따른 고율의 누진율을 곱하여 산출한 퇴직금을 지급하되, 월봉은 퇴직 당시의 월평균임금을 말한다는 규정을 두었다가(이하 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이라 한다) 1981. 1. 1. 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의 없이 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 개정하여 월봉에 퇴직금 지급률을 곱하여 퇴직금을 산출하는 기본방식은 유지하되 누진율을 인하하고 월봉의 범위를 축소함으로써 기존의 일반직 직원에 대하여 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 불리하게 개정 시행하면서 그 부칙 제2조에 위 개정 퇴직금 규정 시행 당시 재직자의 퇴직금 산출에 관하여 1980. 12. 31. 이전 재직기간에 대하여는 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 적용하고 1981. 1. 1. 이후 재직기간에 대하여는 위 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용한다는 취지의 경과규정을 둔 사실(이하 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정이라 한다), 1981. 4. 1. 당시 별정직 직원, 1981. 1. 1. 이전에 입사한 일반직 직원, 1981. 1. 1. 이후에 입사한 일반직 직원 중 1981. 1. 1. 이전에 입사한 일반직 직원이 최다수인 사실을 인정한 다음, 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정 부칙 제2조가 본문과는 별개의 퇴직금 제도를 규정하고 있으므로 1981. 4. 1. 당시 피고 공사에는 별정직 직원에 대하여 적용되는 퇴직금 제도와 일반직 직원에 대하여 법규적 효력을 가지는 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정에 따른 퇴직금 제도만이 시행되고 있었다고 할 수 없고, 나아가 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의 없이 취업규칙이 불이익하게 변경되면 기존의 근로자에게는 종전의 취업규칙이 적용되고 변경 후에 입사한 근로자에 대하여는 변경된 취업규칙이 적용되므로 1981. 4. 1. 당시 피고 공사에는 별정직 퇴직금 규정, 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정, 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이 퇴직금 제도로 시행되고 있었고, 1981. 1. 1. 이전에 입사한 일반직 직원이 최다수이므로 구 근로기준법(1980. 12. 31. 법률 제3349호로 개정되어 1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5305호로 폐지되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제28조 제2항, 부칙 제2항에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터는 모든 근로자에 대하여 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이 적용되어야 한다고 판단하였다.

3. 그러나 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정 부칙 제2조에서 원심판시와 같은 규정을 두고 있다고 하더라도 이는 경과규정에 불과할 뿐 본문과는 별개의 퇴직금 제도라고 할 수 없고(이를 별개의 퇴직금 제도라고 한다면 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의하에 퇴직금 규정을 불이익하게 변경하면서 종전 근무기간에 대하여는 종전 규정을 적용한다는 경과규정을 두더라도 이는 퇴직금차등제도 금지에 위반되어 허용되지 않는다고 하여야 할 것이므로 부당하다고 하지 않을 수 없다.), 한편 기록에 의하면, 이 법원의 이 사건 환송판결의 이유는 앞서 본 법리와 같이 피고 공사가 1981. 1. 1. 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의 없이 일반직 직원에 대한 퇴직금 규정을 불이익하게 변경하였다고 하더라도 취업규칙의 작성·변경권이 사용자에게 있는 이상 현행의 법규적 효력을 가진 취업규칙은 변경된 취업규칙으로서 기존 일반직 직원에 대한 관계에서도 취업규칙은 유효하게 변경되는 것이라고 할 것이므로 1981. 4. 1. 당시 피고 공사의 일반직 직원에 대하여는 취업규칙의 변경으로 인하여 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정만이 법규적 효력을 가지는 퇴직금 제도이고, 비록 1981. 1. 1. 이전에 입사한 일반직 직원에 대하여 기득이익을 침해하는 결과로 되어 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용할 수 없고 개정 전 퇴직금 규정을 적용하게 된다고 하더라도 개정 전 퇴직금 규정은 퇴직금 제도라고 할 수 없어서(따라서 구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항이 금지하는 퇴직금차등제도에 해당하지 아니한다) 구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항이 시행된 1981. 4. 1. 당시 피고 공사에는 별정직 직원에 대하여 적용되는 퇴직금 제도와 일반직 직원에 대하여 법규적 효력을 가지는 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정에 따른 퇴직금 제도가 시행되고 있었다 할 것인데, 구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항, 부칙 제2항에 의하여 1981. 4. 1.부터 퇴직금차등제도가 금지되고 최다수 근로자에게 적용되는 퇴직금 제도가 당해 사업 내의 퇴직금 제도로 적용되므로 원고에 대한 퇴직금을 산정함에 있어서는 1981. 4. 1. 당시의 일반직 직원과 별정직 직원의 수를 비교하여 본 후 일반직 직원이 다수일 경우에는 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정을 적용하여야 한다 는 것이므로, 원심으로서는 환송 후의 심리과정에서 새로운 주장이나 입증이 제출되어 기속적 판단의 기초가 된 사실관계에 변동이 생기지 않는 한 대법원의 위 환송판결에 기속을 받는다고 할 것이다.

그럼에도 불구하고 원심은 피고 공사가 1981. 1. 1. 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의 없이 일반직 직원에 대한 퇴직금 규정을 불리하게 변경하였다는 동일한 사실관계하에서 앞서 본 법리 및 환송판결에 어긋나게 1981. 4. 1. 당시 피고 공사에 별정직 퇴직금 규정, 기존의 일반직 직원에 대한 개정 전 퇴직금 규정, 개정 후 입사한 일반직 직원에 대한 1981. 1. 1. 개정 퇴직금 규정이 퇴직금 제도로서 시행되고 있었다고 판단하고, 개정 전 퇴직금 규정이 최다수 근로자에 대하여 적용되는 퇴직금 제도로서 1981. 4. 1.부터는 모든 근로자에 대하여 적용된다고 판단하였으므로, 이는 이 법원이 파기환송을 하면서 파기이유로 설시한 판단에 반하는 판단을 하고 근로자 집단의 집단적 의사결정 방법에 의한 동의 없는 취업규칙 불이익 변경의 효력에 관한 법리도 오해한 위법을 저지른 것이라고 아니할 수 없다.

4. 그러므로 원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 다시 심리·판단하게 하기 위하여 원심법원에 환송하기로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 천경송(재판장) 지창권 신성택(주심) 송진훈

Related statutes

구 근로기준법 제28조 제2항

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
96다3241 · 대법원 1996-09-10
Severance Pay, etc. (퇴직금등)
#2
95다32631 · 대법원 1996-12-23
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case
#3
93다46841 · 대법원 1994-05-24
Retirement Pay
#4
89다카31443 · 대법원 1990-07-10
Retirement Pay
#5
92다39778 · 대법원 1993-01-15
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case

Cases citing this decision

2002다2843 · 대법원 2003-12-18
Wages (Severance Pay Dispute)
98다11628 · 대법원 2000-02-25
Retirement Pay
99다30473 · 대법원 1999-11-12
Confirmation of Invalidity of Dismissal, etc. (해고무효확인등)
97다24511 · 대법원 1997-11-28
Retirement Pay, etc.
96다1726 · 대법원 1997-08-26
Severance Pay (퇴직금)

Related tools & guides

AI answers need an account (free accounts: 2 per month) — submit and you'll return to this question after logging in. Search and case reading stay free.

File a complaintlogin requiredCalculatorsFind more cases

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)