[Plaintiffs, Appellants] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Civil Comprehensive Law Office, Attorney Kim Seon-su and 4 others)
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission (중앙노동위원회)
[Intervenor for the Defendant] Korea War Memorial Foundation (전쟁기념사업회) (Attorney: Kim Gwang-jeong)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu37884, decided September 1, 1995
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In the case of a declaration of intent not corresponding to the true intention (non-genuine declaration of intent), the "true intention" refers to the declarant's own idea of making a declaration of intent with a specific content, and does not mean the matter that the declarant genuinely desires in his or her heart (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da41528, 92Da41535, decided July 16, 1993). Therefore, even if the declarant did not genuinely desire the content of the declaration of intent in his or her heart, if the declarant made the declaration of intent because he or she judged it to be the best course under the circumstances at the time, this cannot be regarded as a non-genuine declaration of intent lacking the internal intention to bring about the legal effect.
According to the record, the Intervenor for the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "Intervenor") is a corporation established on January 31, 1989 pursuant to the Act on the Korea War Memorial Foundation (전쟁기념사업회법) for the purpose of constructing and operating the War Memorial and Memorial Tower, and collecting, preserving, managing, and exhibiting memorial materials, as well as conducting research on war history. Plaintiff 1 joined the Intervenor on January 31, 1989, and Plaintiff 2 joined on December 30, 1989, each as a Grade 2 general employee, and worked there. In the early years after its establishment, since the Intervenor's work was mainly focused on planning projects such as preparation for the construction of the War Memorial and Memorial Tower, academic research on war, war history research, and collection of exhibition materials, the Intervenor appointed persons such as former field-grade officers who had completed the Army College to higher-grade positions in consideration of their combat experience, knowledge of war history, and planning ability. As a result, the higher-grade positions became bloated while the lower-grade positions remained understaffed. During the National Assembly's inspection of state administration and the Board of Audit and Inspection's audit, it was pointed out that the Intervenor's grade classification for its employees was set higher than that of similar institutions such as the Independence Hall of Korea and the National Museum, and that the higher-grade positions were excessively bloated compared to the lower-grade positions. In response, on April 7, 1994, the Intervenor lowered the grade of all employees, including the Plaintiffs, by one grade retroactively to January 1, 1994, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs' grade was lowered from Grade 2 to Grade 3 (the Plaintiffs do not dispute this as an unfair demotion). Subsequently, on May 13, 1994, the Minister of National Defense, who under the Act on the Korea War Memorial Foundation has the authority to approve the Intervenor's business plans and budget (of the Intervenor's annual budget of approximately 6 billion won, about 3 billion won is government-subsidized) and to supervise and direct its business, instructed the Intervenor to consolidate similar positions and reduce higher-grade positions in line with the change of the Intervenor's main work from planning work to management and operation of the memorial upon the opening of the War Memorial on June 10, 1994. In response, the Intervenor decided to reorganize its organization and personnel, including demoting 7 of the then-22 Grade 3 employees (although there were 23 authorized Grade 3 positions under the organizational chart, one was vacant) to Grade 4. The Intervenor explained to the 72 higher-grade employees subject to the reorganization the inevitability of the reorganization pursuant to the Minister of National Defense's instruction, and then distributed to them a written consent to demotion containing the statement, "If you do not agree to the demotion, the Foundation regrets that it cannot retain you, and we are pained by this." The Intervenor obtained consent from 71 of these employees, including the Plaintiffs, and then, following deliberation by the Personnel Committee based on pre-established evaluation criteria, demoted 7 Grade 3 employees, including the Plaintiffs, to Grade 4 on June 1, 1994. Furthermore, according to the Intervenor's personnel regulations, "demotion" means appointment to a grade lower than the grade currently held, and demotion is permitted where the position is abolished due to a change in the organizational structure or authorized number of positions and the person concerned consents thereto; and where a position is abolished or personnel are reduced due to changes in the organizational structure, authorized number of positions, or reduction of budget, the appointing authority, namely the President of the Foundation, may dismiss employees ex officio.
Given these facts, as the Intervenor's main work shifted from the planning work of its early establishment period to the management and operation of the memorial, it became necessary to move away from the organizational structure centered on higher-grade positions from the early establishment period, reduce higher-grade positions, and reinforce lower-grade positions. Moreover, under the Act on the Korea War Memorial Foundation, the Intervenor had no choice but to comply with the Minister of National Defense's instruction to reduce higher-grade positions as part of organizational and personnel reorganization, and under the Intervenor's personnel regulations, where a position is abolished or personnel are reduced due to changes in the organizational structure, authorized number of positions, or reduction of budget, the appointing authority, the President of the Foundation, may dismiss employees ex officio. Under these circumstances, although the Intervenor's employees, including the Plaintiffs, did not genuinely desire the demotion itself in their hearts, in a situation where someone inevitably had to be selected as a subject of personnel reduction, if selected as such a subject based on objectively reasonable evaluation criteria, they judged that being demoted was preferable to being dismissed ex officio, and accordingly made the declaration of intent consenting to the demotion as described above. Therefore, this cannot be regarded as a non-genuine declaration of intent lacking the internal intention to bring about the legal effect of consenting to the demotion.
The judgment below, which reached the same conclusion, is justified, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law regarding the interpretation of declarations of intent and the legal doctrine on non-genuine declarations of intent, as argued in the grounds of appeal.
Furthermore, as lawfully determined by the court below, the Intervenor, prior to selecting the subjects of demotion, established evaluation criteria in advance, dividing the evaluation factors into service performance rating (40 points), career rating (25 points), commendation (5 points), commanding officer's recommendation (20 points), and interview score (10 points), totaling 100 points, and set the scoring standards as determined in the judgment below to select the subjects of demotion. Even though, with respect to the interview score, no uniform criteria were established and each examiner independently evaluated according to his or her own standards, assigning scores ranging from a minimum of 5 points to a maximum of 10 points, in light of the proportion that the deviation in interview scores occupies within the total score, and the fact, as found from the record, that the interview scores independently given by the examiners were found to be nearly identical to the pre-evaluated service performance ratings regardless of the selection of the subjects of demotion, it cannot be said that the evaluation criteria lacked objectivity or were unreasonable. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment below violated the rules of evidence or that there was an error of misapprehension of facts due to insufficient deliberation, as argued in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing Plaintiffs. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order, with the unanimous consent of the participating Justices.
Justice Kim Hyeong-seon (Presiding Justice), Park Man-ho (Justice in charge), Park Jun-seo, Lee Yong-hun