[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff's Litigation Representative Attorney Kim Gap-bae
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission (중앙노동위원회)
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Hankook Ilbo Co., Ltd., Litigation Representative Attorney Lee Bong-gu
[Judgment of the Court Below] Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu16777 rendered on May 17, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the facts found by the court below, the personnel management regulations (인사관리규정) of the company that is the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the Intervenor Company") provide that an employee may be dismissed "when an organizational unit is reduced, abolished, or merged, or when a position is abolished" and "when personnel reduction is necessary due to the company's circumstances." On June 20, 1989, for the purpose of rationalizing management, the Intervenor Company reorganized its organizational structure, which had previously consisted of one Chairman, two Vice-Chairmen, one Representative Director/President, one President in charge of the Korea Times, one President in charge of Ilgan Sports, and one Representative Director/Executive Vice President, by abolishing the positions of Vice-Chairman, Representative Director/President, and the media-specific President positions. Accordingly, the positions of drivers who had been exclusively assigned to the abolished executive positions were also abolished. Non-party 1, who had been the President in charge of the Korea Times, was removed from his position as President and appointed as a Standing Advisor. Meanwhile, applying the aforementioned personnel management regulations, the company decided to dismiss the drivers who had been hired for exclusive assignment to the abolished executive positions, and accordingly gave advance notice of dismissal to and dismissed the Plaintiff, who had been the driver exclusively assigned to Non-party 1. Following this reorganization, the drivers exclusively assigned to the two dismissed Vice-Chairmen, the Representative Director/President, and the President in charge of Ilgan Sports were all dismissed as well, except that Non-party 3, who had originally been hired to work in the dispatch office and was later dispatched for exclusive assignment to Non-party 2, a Vice-Chairman, was returned to the dispatch office. If the facts are as found, the lower court's determination that the Intervenor Company's dismissal of the Plaintiff, based on the application of its personnel management regulations on the ground that it had abolished the aforementioned executive positions and the driver positions exclusively assigned thereto for the purpose of management rationalization, was justified, is correct, and it cannot be said that there was any error in the lower court's determination based on a misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning "justifiable cause" for dismissal under Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법).
Generally, in cases where an employer dismisses employees for reasons of business necessity (i.e., a "restructuring dismissal" or "정리해고"), the requirements argued by the Plaintiff would indeed be required. However, the dismissal in this case was carried out pursuant to the Intervenor Company's personnel management regulations, as found by the lower court, in accordance with an organizational restructuring aimed at management rationalization. Upon examination of the record, it appears that the Intervenor Company had such business necessity, that efforts were made to avoid the dismissal, and that, in light of the particular circumstances surrounding the hiring process and work arrangements of drivers exclusively assigned to executives, the dismissal of the exclusively assigned drivers based on the criteria as found by the lower court appears reasonable. It also appears that appropriate notice and consultation took place prior to the dismissal. Therefore, the lower court's determination that the dismissal in this case had justifiable cause is correct. The precedents cited by the Plaintiff are not applicable to this case, and it cannot be said that the lower court's determination is contrary to the precedents of this Court (see this Court's Decisions 88Daka11145 rendered on February 28, 1989, and 86Daka1875 rendered on April 14, 1987, respectively). Nor can it be said that the lower court failed to sufficiently examine the requirements for restructuring dismissal. Accordingly, all of the grounds of appeal are without merit.
Therefore, 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, in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justice Ahn Woo-man (Presiding Justice), Justice Yoon Kwan, Justice Bae Man-woon