[Plaintiff, Appellee]
[Defendant, Appellant] Dongbu Chemical Co., Ltd., Attorneys Jeong Man-jo and 1 other, Counsel for the Defendant, Appellant
[Original Judgment] Seoul High Court Decision 89Na38159 rendered on January 17, 1991
[Order]
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including, to the extent they supplement the grounds of appeal timely submitted, the reasons stated in the supplementary brief on the grounds of appeal submitted after the deadline) are examined as follows.
1. As to Ground 1
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in this case, where the Defendant company asserted that its dismissal for managerial reasons (정리해고) dated April 30, 1988 against the deceased Plaintiff 6, whose litigation status was succeeded by Plaintiff 6-A, Plaintiff 6-B, Plaintiff 6-C, Plaintiff 6-D, and Plaintiff 6-E, and against the remaining plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiffs") was lawful, while the Plaintiffs asserted that it was unlawful, the court below held as follows: in order for a dismissal for managerial reasons to be lawful, first, there must exist an urgent managerial necessity of such a degree that the survival of the enterprise would be jeopardized unless the dismissal is carried out; second, the employer must have exhausted efforts to avoid dismissal, such as rationalization of management policy or work methods, prohibition of new hiring, use of temporary leave and voluntary retirement, and disposal of assets; third, reasonable and fair standards for selecting employees subject to the workforce reduction must be established and applied; and in addition, sincere consultation with the labor union or the workers must be conducted prior to the dismissal. The court below interpreted the first of these requirements as meaning that the enterprise must be in a state of such a high degree of managerial crisis that, objectively, the enterprise would inevitably go bankrupt unless the Plaintiffs were dismissed. The court below then held, in light of the facts, that it could not be found that the Defendant company, at the time of the dismissal in question, was in an objective situation of such a high degree of managerial crisis that bankruptcy would inevitably result unless the Plaintiffs were dismissed, and accordingly ruled that, without any need to examine the remaining requirements for dismissal for managerial reasons, the dismissal in this case lacked the requirements for justification and was therefore unlawful.
Upon examination, while it is true that the requirements set forth by the court below as above are necessary requirements for a dismissal for managerial reasons, the first requirement—namely, managerial necessity—should not necessarily be limited to circumstances aimed at avoiding the bankruptcy of the enterprise. This is because, in actual practice, personnel reduction measures by enterprises are undertaken not only for economic reasons such as deterioration of business performance, but also for technical reasons such as changes in work methods and the introduction of new technology in order to cope with improvement of productivity and recovery or enhancement of competitiveness, as well as for reasons of structural changes in industry arising from such technological innovation, and there is ample necessity for such measures. In light of this, it is appropriate to broadly recognize that urgent managerial necessity exists where the personnel reduction is objectively found to be reasonable.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below erred in its legal interpretation regarding urgent managerial necessity, which is one of the requirements for a dismissal for managerial reasons, and this error affected the outcome of the judgment. Accordingly, the argument pointing out this error is well-founded.
2. As to Ground 3
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below cited, as one of the grounds for finding that the Defendant company was not in a state of such a high degree of managerial crisis that bankruptcy would inevitably result unless the dismissal in this case were carried out, the following: "If the Defendant company, at the time of the dismissal in this case, had truly been in an objective situation of such a high degree of managerial crisis that bankruptcy would inevitably result unless the Plaintiffs, among others, were dismissed, it would not be reasonable to believe that the Dongbu Group—a conglomerate that already owned a portion of the Defendant company's shares and thus had a good grasp of the company's actual condition—would have acquired 50 percent of the company's shares for approximately KRW 53.1 billion, which is approximately KRW 16.5 billion more than the bid amount of another conglomerate group, while promising job security to the existing executives and employees."
However, even according to the descriptions of Exhibit Gap No. 1-1 (document submission concerning the acquisition of Yeongnam Petrochemical shares) and Exhibit Gap No. 1-2 (stock purchase agreement), which were the evidence relied upon by the court below in finding that non-party Dongbu Petrochemical Co., Ltd. of the Dongbu Group guaranteed the status of the executives and employees of the Defendant company upon acquiring the Defendant company, it can only be found that the said Dongbu Petrochemical Co., Ltd., which acquired the Defendant company, guaranteed the succession of the executives and employees who were in service at the Defendant company as of the date of the contract's execution; it cannot be found that it guaranteed that no dismissal for managerial reasons, even for legitimate reasons, would be carried out for a certain period after the succession, and there is no other evidence to establish this. Accordingly, in this case, it cannot be readily concluded, on the basis of the descriptions in Exhibits Gap No. 1-1 and 1-2, that the managerial condition of the Defendant company at the time of its acquisition by Dongbu Petrochemical Co., Ltd. was not so serious as to exclude even legitimate dismissals for managerial reasons after the acquisition.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below erred by misconstruing the descriptions in Exhibits Gap No. 1-1 and 1-2 and by making a determination contrary to the rules of experience and logic, and this error affected the judgment. Accordingly, the argument pointing out this error is well-founded.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below, the opinions of the participating Justices being unanimous, and it is so decided as set forth in the Order.
Justice Kim Seok-su (Presiding Justice), Lee Hoi-chang, Lee Jae-seong, Bae Man-un