[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Samhan Synthetic Fiber Co., Ltd., Attorney Lee Ki-chang, Counsel for the Defendant
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 91Na41905 rendered on March 17, 1992
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In light of the evidentiary matters set forth in the judgment below, the fact-finding of the court below is deemed justified and acceptable, and upon careful examination of the record, no trace can be found that the Plaintiffs made any application for evidence during the course of the proceedings below. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the judgment below contains illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence or insufficient deliberation, as pointed out in the arguments.
2. Among the requirements necessary for a so-called economic dismissal (dismissal of an employee due to management circumstances) to have justifiable grounds, the requirement that the employer must make every effort to avoid dismissal means that the employer, in order to minimize the scope of dismissal of employees, takes possible measures such as rationalization of management policy or work methods, prohibition of new hiring, use of temporary leave and voluntary retirement, and transfer of employees. Although the judgment of the court below regarding whether the Defendant company made every effort to avoid dismissal is somewhat insufficient, in light of the following facts found by the court below: that the Defendant company is a company engaged in the manufacture, sale, and import/export of textiles, and operates a domestic-sales factory at its head office, the Guro Factory in Doksan-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul, and the Seongnam Factory in Seongnam-si, respectively; that the domestic-sales factory at the head office mainly manufactures women's domestic clothing under the brand name "Primotera," the Guro Factory mainly manufactures export clothing (jackets), and the Seongnam Factory mainly manufactures socks; that since the Guro Factory began operations in January 1988, it continued to suffer deficits every year and had no business prospects, making it difficult to continue operating the factory any longer, and that after the final self-rescue efforts by labor and management to avoid closure also failed, the Defendant company was inevitably forced to close down the factory around July 18, 1990; that in connection with the closure of the Guro Factory, the Defendant company reached an agreement with the majority of employees, except for the Plaintiff and a few others, to dismiss them on the condition of paying remaining wages and retirement allowances; that the domestic-sales factory produces high-end women's clothing requiring skill and expertise, and thus paid higher wages compared to the Guro Factory, which mass-produces clothing such as jackets through line work, while the Seongnam Factory involved simple labor work and paid lower wages than the Guro Factory, such that although these businesses were all operated by the same Defendant company, they were in fact treated as separate workplaces, making it difficult for employees to be transferred between them; and that the domestic-sales factory at the head office also closed down around September 1990 due to deteriorating management conditions — it is understood that the court below determined that the closure of the Defendant company's Guro Factory was due to urgent management necessity, and that in dismissing all employees of the Guro Factory as a result, there was no room for the Defendant company to transfer those employees to the domestic-sales factory at the head office or to the Seongnam Factory, and that no other measures to avoid dismissal could have been taken. In light of the record, the above fact-finding and determination of the court below are justified, and it cannot be said that there is illegality therein due to a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning the requirements for economic dismissal, as pointed out in the arguments.
All of the grounds of appeal are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.