[Plaintiffs, Appellants] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other
Plaintiffs' Litigation Representative: Donghwa Law Firm, Attorney in Charge Lim Doo-bin
[Defendant, Appellee] Small and Medium Business Corporation (중소기업진흥공단)
Litigation Representative: Attorney Ko Jae-hyeok
[Court Below] Seoul High Court Decision 92Na33956 rendered on November 4, 1992
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines the grounds of appeal raised by the Plaintiffs' litigation representative.
The court below found the following facts: the Defendant Corporation is a juridical person established on January 4, 1979 pursuant to the Small and Medium Business Promotion Act (중소기업진흥법), which enacted and implemented Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations on March 23, 1979; that, in accordance with the government's policy of adjusting and unifying the level of retirement allowance payments by government-invested institutions to match that of public officials, the Defendant Corporation amended the Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations on April 29, 1982 to lower the retirement allowance payment rate, and did so without any process of hearing the opinions of or obtaining consent from the employees of the Defendant Corporation, but merely through a board resolution followed by approval from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, after which it has paid retiring employees only the retirement allowance calculated according to the amended payment rate; that thereafter, on December 21, 1988, the employees of the Defendant Corporation established a labor union in which more than half of the employees enrolled, and on April 15, 1989 concluded a collective bargaining agreement with the Defendant Corporation, Article 4 of which provided that the Defendant Corporation may not lower working conditions already being implemented under any pretext, and further, as a transitional provision, Supplementary Provision Article 4 provided that all matters arising prior to the effective date of the said collective bargaining agreement shall be deemed governed by the said agreement, and that from that point the provisions of the said collective bargaining agreement have been applied to and implemented for the employees of the Defendant Corporation.
Based on these findings, the court below determined that the labor union of the Defendant Corporation, by including the provision of Supplementary Provision Article 4 of the said collective bargaining agreement, appears to have intended for the labor union to retroactively approve the effect of all matters concerning working conditions and the like that arose in labor-management relations from the establishment of the Defendant Corporation until the conclusion of the said collective bargaining agreement; that since the said collective bargaining agreement contained no provision specifically excluding matters relating to the April 29, 1982 amendment to the employment rules concerning the change in the retirement allowance payment rate, the labor union must be construed as having retroactively consented, by means of the said collective bargaining agreement, to the change in the retirement allowance payment rate as well; and that, accordingly, the amended retirement allowance payment rate must be applied to employees who retired after the implementation of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore, even though the Plaintiffs were not members of the labor union and did not approve the provisions of the said collective bargaining agreement, the amended Retirement Allowance Payment Regulations must be held to apply to the Plaintiffs.
Although the reasoning set forth in the judgment of the court below is not entirely without some deficiencies, in light of the relevant evidence, the record, and the provisions of the relevant statutes, the above findings and determination of the court below are ultimately deemed justified and acceptable, and it cannot be found that the judgment below contains, as argued in the grounds of appeal, an illegality of misapprehending the Plaintiffs' assertions and thereby failing to properly examine the case, resulting in a mistaken finding of fact, or an illegality of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the payment of retirement allowances or the collective bargaining agreement (see this Court's Decision 92Da50447 rendered on February 12, 1993).
Furthermore, Article 28, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) prohibits the establishment of a retirement allowance system with differential treatment within a single business; however, where a changed retirement allowance system infringes upon the vested interests of employees, such that the effect of the change does not extend to employees who retired before consent was given through the employees' collective decision-making method regarding the change to the retirement allowance system, thereby making it inevitable that the former retirement allowance system be applied to them, even if this results in a retirement allowance system separate from the changed retirement allowance system that applies to employees who retire after such consent by the employees has been given, such a case cannot be deemed to constitute the establishment of a retirement allowance system with differential treatment as prohibited by the said statutory provision (see this Court's En Banc Decision 91Da45165 rendered on December 22, 1992).
The grounds of appeal, in the end, amount to nothing more than a criticism of the court below's selection and evaluation of evidence and fact-finding, which fall within the exclusive authority of the court below, or a groundless disparagement of the judgment below based on a misunderstanding of the purport of the relevant statutory provisions, including Article 28, Paragraph 2 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus cannot be accepted.
Therefore, all of the Plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the Plaintiffs, who are the losing parties, the participating Justices being unanimous in this opinion, and it is so decided as set forth in the Order.
Chief Justice Yoon Kwan (Presiding Judge), Justice Kim Ju-han, Justice Kim Yong-jun (Justice in Charge), Justice Cheon Kyeong-song