Workbear재주넘는곰
대법원 89다카7754

Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case퇴직금

Decided1990. 04. 27. Court대법원Worker won
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 Supreme Court (대법원) precedent establishes that when a company unfavorably changes its severance pay (퇴직금) system from a progressive payment scheme to a flat-rate scheme, the change is invalid without the consent of a majority of the workers. It further holds that even employees hired after the unfavorable change takes effect are still governed by the previous, more favorable work rules (취업규칙).

Key takeaways
  • CaseA company changed its severance pay (퇴직금) system from a progressive payment scheme to a less favorable flat-rate scheme without obtaining consent from a majority of its employees.
  • OutcomeThe court ruled that the unfavorable change was invalid without majority worker consent, and that the previous, more favorable rules applied even to employees hired after the change.
  • LessonEmployers must obtain consent from a majority of employees before making unfavorable changes to work rules (취업규칙); otherwise, the change will be deemed invalid and unenforceable.
Issues
  • Whether collective consent from the worker group is required when work rules (취업규칙) are changed in a way that disadvantages employees
  • Whether the previous work rules (취업규칙) continue to apply to employees hired after an invalid unfavorable change was made
Key reasoning

Under Korean labor law, when an employer seeks to modify existing employment conditions set out in the work rules (취업규칙) in a way that disadvantages employees, such a change requires the collective consent of the worker group, typically expressed through a majority vote or agreement. If this collective consent is not obtained, the modification is legally invalid (무효). Because the change never took legal effect, the previous, more favorable version of the work rules continues to apply—not only to employees who were already employed at the time of the attempted change, but also to those who joined the company afterward. This ensures that employers cannot circumvent worker protections by unilaterally altering unfavorable conditions and then hiring new employees under the invalid new terms.

Summary of Decision (English, AI translation)

a. Although the authority to draft and amend the rules of employment (취업규칙) belongs, in principle, to the employer, where the employer seeks to unilaterally amend the rules of employment so as to alter the content of existing working conditions to the disadvantage of employees, such amendment requires the consent of the group of employees who were subject to the previous rules of employment, obtained through the collective decision-making method of that group of employees. As for the method of obtaining such consent, where there is a labor union organized by a majority of the employees, the consent of that union is required, and where there is no such union, the consent of a majority of the employees obtained through a meeting-type method is required. Absent consent obtained by such method, the amendment shall have no effect as an amendment of the rules of employment.

b. Where the employer company amended the rules of employment—disadvantageous to employees—by changing the retirement allowance system from a progressive payment system to a single-rate payment system, without obtaining the consent of the group of employees, such as a labor union organized by a majority of the employees, through the aforementioned decision-making method, such amendment of the rules of employment is invalid; therefore, the previous rules of employment shall apply even to employees who joined the company after the amendment of the rules of employment.

Full text (English, AI translation) 2,554 chars

[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff's Attorney Kim Sang-hoon
[Defendant, Appellant] Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., Attorney Yoo Kyung-hee and 3 others of Hanmi Joint Law Office
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 88Na41769 rendered on February 28, 1989

[Order]

The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

[Reasoning]

As to the grounds for appeal by the Defendant's attorney,

Even though the authority to formulate and amend the rules of employment (취업규칙) belongs, in principle, to the employer, in order to unilaterally amend the rules of employment to the disadvantage of employees by changing the content of existing working conditions, the consent of the group of employees who were subject to the previous rules of employment, obtained through a collective decision-making method, is required. As to the method of such consent, where there is a labor union organized by a majority of the employees, the consent of that union is required, and where there is no such union, the consent of a majority of the employees obtained through a method such as a meeting of the employees is required. Absent consent obtained through such a method, the amendment shall have no effect as an amendment of the rules of employment. This is the settled view of this Court. (See this Court's Decisions 77Da355 rendered on July 26, 1977; 87Daka2578 rendered on May 10, 1988; and 88Daka4277 rendered on May 9, 1989.)

The court below, standing on the above view, determined that since the Defendant, in amending the rules of employment to the disadvantage of employees by changing the retirement allowance payment system from a progressive payment system to a single (non-progressive) payment system, did not obtain the consent of the group of employees, such as a labor union organized by a majority of the employees, through the aforesaid decision-making method, such amendment of the rules of employment is invalid, and that the previous rules of employment apply even to the Plaintiff, who joined the company after the said amendment of the rules of employment. This determination is justified, and it cannot be said that the judgment below contains an illegality as argued in the grounds of appeal. 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 stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.

Justice Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Justice), Park Woo-dong, Lee Jae-sung, Kim Yong-jun

【판결요지】

가. 취업규칙의 작성, 변경권이 원칙적으로 사용자에게 있다 할지라도 취업규칙의 변경에 의하여 기존 근로조건의 내용을 일방적으로 근로자에게 불이익하게 변경하려면 종전 취업규칙의 적용을 받고 있던 근로자집단의 집단적 의사결정방법에 의한 동의를 요한다 할 것이고, 그 동의방법은 근로자 과반수로 조직된 노동조합이 있는 경우에는 그 조합의, 그와 같은 조합이 없는 경우에는 근로자들의 회의방식에 의한 과반수의 동의가 있어야 하고, 위와 같은 방법에 의한 동의가 없는 한 취업규칙의 변경으로서의 효력이 없다.

나. 사용자인 회사가 누진지급제에 의한 퇴직금을 단수지급제도로 변경하는 근로자에게 불이익한 취업규칙의 변경을 함에 있어서 근로자의 과반수로 조직된 노동조합 등 근로자집단의 의사결정방법에 의한 동의가 없었다면 이와 같은 취업규칙의 변경은 무효이므로, 위 취업규칙 변경 이후에 입사한 근로자에 대하여도 종전의 취업규칙이 적용된다.

【참조조문】

근로기준법 제95조

【참조판례】

가. 대법원 1977.7.26. 선고 77다355 판결(공1977,10242), 1988.5.10. 선고 87다카2578 판결(공1988,949), 1989.5.9. 선고 88다카4277 판결(공1989,88), 1990.3.12. 선고 89다카24780 판결(공1990,882)

【주문】·【이유】 전문 893자 · 펼쳐 보기

【원고, 피상고인】 원고 소송대리인 변호사 김상훈

【피고, 상고인】 주식회사 한진해운 소송대리인 법무법인 한미합동법률사무소 담당변호사 유경희 외 3인

【웜심판결】 서울고등법원 1989. 2. 28. 선고 88나41769 판결

【주 문】

상고를 기각한다.

상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.

【이 유】 피고 소송대리인의 상고이유에 대하여,

취업규칙의 작성, 변경권이 원칙적으로 사용자에게 있다 할지라도 취업규칙의 변경에 의하여 기존 근로조건의 내용을 일방적으로 근로자에게 불이익하게 변경하려면 종전 취업규칙의 적용을 받고 있던 근로자집단의 집단적 의사결정방법에 의한 동의를 요한다 할 것이고, 그 동의방법은 근로자 과반수로 조직된 노동조합이 있는 경우에는 그 조합의, 그와 같은 조합이 없는 경우에는 근로자들의 회의 방식에 의한 과반수의 동의가 있어야 하고, 위와 같은 방법에 의한 동의가 없는 한 취업규칙의 변경으로서의 효력이 없다는 것이 당원의 견해이다.(당원 1977.7.26. 선고 77다355 판결; 1988.5.10.선고 87다카2578 판결 ;1989.5.9. 선고 88다카4277판결 참조)

원심이 위와 같은 견해에 서서 피고가 누진지급제에 의한 퇴직금을 단수지급제로 변경하는 근로자에게 불이익한 취업규칙의 변경을 함에 있어서 근로자의 과반수로 조직된 노동조합 등 근로자집단의 의사결정방법에 의한 동의가 없었으므로 이와 같은 취업규칙의 변경은 무효이고, 위 취업규칙변경 이후에 입사한 원고에 대하여도 종전의 취업규칙이 적용된다고 판단하였는바, 이는 정당하고 원심판결에 소론과 같은 위법이 있다 할 수 없다. 논지는 이유없다.

이에 상고를 기각하고, 상고비용은 패소자의 부담으로 하여 관여 법관의 일치된 의견으로 주문과 같이 판결한다.

대법관 윤영철(재판장) 박우동 이재성 김용준

Related statutes

Similar cases

Cases with high content similarity to this one.

#1
91다8777, 8784(병합) · 대법원 1991-12-10
Retirement Pay
#2
91다45165 · 대법원 1992-12-22
Claim for Severance Pay (퇴직금청구)
#3
94다30638 · 대법원 1996-04-26
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case
#4
89다카31443 · 대법원 1990-07-10
Retirement Pay
#5
92다39778 · 대법원 1993-01-15
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case

Cases citing this decision

91다45165 · 대법원 1992-12-22
Claim for Severance Pay (퇴직금청구)
91다8777, 8784(병합) · 대법원 1991-12-10
Retirement Pay
91다3031 · 대법원 1991-03-27
Retirement Pay
90다15952,15976 · 대법원 1991-02-12
Retirement Pay
90다카23868 · 대법원 1990-11-27
Severance Pay (퇴직금) Case

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.

Cross-check the original: 국가법령정보센터 (auxiliary link)