[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff, Counsel: Attorney Kim Jeong-gi
[Defendant, Appellee] Gangwon Industrial Co., Ltd.
[Lower Court Judgment] Seoul High Court, Judgment of November 16, 1990, Case No. 90Na2224
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below examined the Plaintiff's claim in this case, in which the Plaintiff, who joined the Defendant company on December 3, 1961 and finally retired on January 31, 1988, asserted that although he underwent four intermediate retirements during that period, these were all merely formal matters on paper compelled by the Defendant company, and that in fact he had continued to work without any severance of the employment relationship, and accordingly sought payment of retirement allowance calculated, for the entire period of service from December 3, 1961 to January 31, 1988 combined, according to the retirement allowance payment rate applicable at the time of his initial employment.
The court below found the following facts: the Plaintiff joined the Electrical Section of Gangwon Coal Mine under the Defendant company on December 3, 1961 and worked as a daily-wage employee; his affiliation was changed to Sampyo Aggregate Business Office under the Defendant company on April 1, 1971; while working there, his affiliation was returned to the aforementioned Gangwon Coal Mine on July 1, 1971; on October 1, 1973, his employment status was changed from daily-wage employee to monthly-salaried staff employee; on May 20, 1983, he submitted a letter of resignation and received his retirement allowance, and then immediately re-joined the Defendant company the very next day, was promoted to Chief of the Electrical Section around July 1983, and worked in that capacity until he finally retired from the Defendant company on January 31, 1988. The court below also found that, since joining the Defendant company on December 3, 1961, the Plaintiff had undergone intermediate retirements on March 31, 1971 and June 30, 1971 due to changes in his assigned workplace, and on September 30, 1973 due to the improvement of his employment status from worker to staff employee, and had continued working at the Defendant company from the date of each such retirement; however, on May 20, 1983, the Plaintiff, needing a lump sum of money, submitted a letter of resignation of his own free will, received a retirement allowance of 6,866,982 won calculated according to his length of service up to that point, and expressed his intention to waive any and all claims against the Defendant company arising from the employment relationship up to that time.
Having established these facts, the court below held as follows: even though the Plaintiff underwent an intermediate retirement on May 20, 1983 and immediately re-joined the company the following day, continuing to work until his retirement on January 31, 1988, insofar as the Plaintiff submitted his letter of resignation on May 20, 1983 based on his own genuine intention, received his retirement allowance, and clearly expressed his intention to waive all claims against the Defendant company, including his claim for retirement allowance, arising from the prior employment relationship up to that point, this cannot be deemed invalid as a merely formal matter on paper compelled by the Defendant company. Therefore, the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant company up to that point terminated as of May 20, 1983, and a new employment contract was concluded on May 21, 1983, which continued in existence until January 31, 1988. Accordingly, the court below held that the Plaintiff's claim for retirement allowance was well-founded only insofar as it concerned the period of service from May 21, 1983 to January 31, 1988.
Upon examination of the record, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as set forth above are proper, and it cannot be said that there was any error in violation of the rules of evidence resulting in a mistake of fact, or any insufficiency of reasoning, or any error in the misapprehension of the law concerning Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법), as argued in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the argument is without merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices involved.
Supreme Court Justice Lee Jae-seong (Presiding Justice), Lee Hoi-chang, Bae Man-woon, Kim Seok-su