[Plaintiff, Appellant]
[Defendant, Appellee] Ssangyong Cement Industrial Co., Ltd., Attorneys Jeong Man-jo and one other, Legal Representatives
[Original Judgment]
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na7045, decided September 28, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal are borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Upon reviewing the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, the lower court's factual findings concerning the circumstances leading to the Defendant Company's transfer of the Plaintiff, who had been working as an employee of the Environmental Safety Management Office at its Donghae Plant, to the Bukpyeong Plant, and its subsequent dismissal of the Plaintiff, are acceptable, and it cannot be said that there was any violation of the rules of evidence. According to what is set forth in the judgment below, the lower court did not find that the Defendant Company's transfer of the Plaintiff was carried out as a disciplinary measure against the Plaintiff, but rather found that it was an exercise of personnel authority (the authority to reassign).
2.
A transfer or reassignment of an employee may constitute a disadvantageous disposition against the employee in that it brings about a change in the type, content, or place of work that the employee is required to provide; however, this in principle falls within the authority of the employer (the holder of personnel authority), and considerable discretion must be recognized therein within the scope necessary for business operations. Accordingly, such a measure cannot be deemed void as a matter of course unless there are special circumstances such as a violation of Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) or an abuse of rights (see this Court's Decision 86Daka2567, decided February 28, 1989). According to the facts found by the lower court, the Plaintiff ignored the instructions of his immediate superior, Kim Yong-nam, an assistant manager of the Environmental Safety Management Office of the Defendant Company's Donghae Plant, failed to attend the unveiling ceremony of the statue of the Defendant Company's founder and its rehearsal, and thereafter used abusive language toward the said Kim Yong-nam. As a result, Kim Yong-nam and others refused to work together with the Plaintiff, and other departments within the Donghae Plant likewise refused to accept the Plaintiff, so that harmony within the Donghae Plant was broken and the working atmosphere deteriorated. Accordingly, the head of the Defendant Company's Donghae Plant consulted with the head of the Bukpyeong Plant and decided to fill the vacant position of safety management personnel at the Bukpyeong Plant, thereby issuing an order transferring the Plaintiff to the Bukpyeong Plant, which was located closer to the Plaintiff's home than the Donghae Plant. Given that the reasons for the Plaintiff's transfer were as stated above, the lower court's determination that this constitutes a case of unavoidable necessity in personnel management, which is a requirement for irregular transfer as prescribed under Article 10 of the Defendant Company's Rules of Employment and Article 25, Item 5 of its Personnel Regulations, is likewise acceptable. Even if the Plaintiff would lose his status as a union delegate as a result of the transfer to the Bukpyeong Plant, under the factual circumstances of this case, this fact alone cannot render the transfer order void or constitute a legitimate ground for the Plaintiff to refuse it.
3. Accordingly, the argument that the transfer order issued by the Defendant Company against the Plaintiff was made without justifiable cause and is therefore void cannot be accepted. If this transfer order is not void, then the Plaintiff was obligated to comply with it, and the Plaintiff's refusal to report for duty in accordance with the transfer order constitutes a wrongful act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant Company's dismissal of the Plaintiff on this ground, pursuant to its Rules of Employment or Personnel Regulations, is void. The argument is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Lee Hoe-chang (Presiding Justice), Lee Jae-seong, Bae Man-un, Kim Seok-su