[Plaintiff, Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney: Acecounsel Law LLC, Attorneys Kim Jeong-hak and one other)
[Defendant, Appellant] Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute (Attorney: Mirero Law LLC, Attorneys Kang Jeong-han and two others)
[Judgment Below] Busan High Court (Changwon) Judgment 2019Na12247, decided May 14, 2020
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
[Reasoning]
The Court examines, ex officio, whether this lawsuit is lawful.
1. A declaratory action requires, as a requirement for legal protection, an interest in seeking a declaration, and such interest in seeking a declaration is recognized only where there exists a present anxiety or risk with respect to the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and obtaining a declaratory judgment against the defendant is the most effective and appropriate means of removing such anxiety or risk (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747, decided October 16, 1997, etc.). Whether there is an interest in seeking a declaration in a declaratory action is a matter to be examined ex officio, and thus the court must determine this on its own initiative regardless of whether the parties have raised the issue (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da240338, decided May 16, 2019).
Meanwhile, even where some provisions of an amended rules of employment (취업규칙) have disadvantageously changed the previous working conditions, and such amendment is invalid because the consent of the employees who were subject to the previous working conditions or rules of employment was not obtained through a collective decision-making method, other amended provisions that are not in a relationship of consideration or connection with such provisions cannot be deemed invalid if they do not disadvantageously change the previous working conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da28556, decided June 24, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Da18072, decided March 10, 1995, etc.).
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts are known.
A. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on August 2, 2010, as a corporate support researcher (기업지원연구직), and the Defendant's rules of employment applicable to corporate support researchers are the Operating Guidelines for Corporate Support Researchers (기업지원연구직 운영요령, hereinafter referred to as "the Operating Guidelines at issue").
B. Some provisions of the Operating Guidelines at issue were amended on multiple occasions beginning November 18, 2010 (hereinafter, the Operating Guidelines at issue prior to the amendment on November 18, 2010 shall be referred to as "the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines").
C. The Plaintiff asserts that some of the provisions of the Operating Guidelines at issue that were amended after he was hired, as described above, were disadvantageously changed for employees, and that since the consent of employees through a collective decision-making method was not obtained for such changes, the amendments are invalid. Based on this assertion, the Plaintiff seeks, through this lawsuit, a declaration against the Defendant that he holds the status of an employee to whom the entirety of the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines applies. In response, the Defendant disputes this, arguing, among other things, that some provisions of the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines which the Plaintiff claims were disadvantageously amended were validly amended, and that the amended Operating Guidelines should apply to the Plaintiff.
3. The Court examines these circumstances in light of the legal principles set forth above.
A. In the claim for relief, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he holds the status of an employee to whom the entirety of the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines still applies as they were, without specifying which parts of the Operating Guidelines at issue he seeks to be exempted from on the ground of disadvantageous amendment.
B. However, in the cause of action, the Plaintiff argued that some of the amended provisions among the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines were disadvantageously changed. There is room to understand the Plaintiff's assertion as seeking a declaration limited to the effect that, with respect only to those provisions of the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines that were disadvantageously changed, the effect of such amended provisions be excluded and that the corresponding provisions of the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines still apply to him.
C. Meanwhile, with respect to provisions of the Pre-Amendment Operating Guidelines that were not amended, or that, even if amended, have no relationship of consideration or connection with the provisions the Plaintiff claims were disadvantageously changed, as well as provisions regarding which there is no particular dispute as to whether they constitute disadvantageous amendments, it appears difficult to recognize an interest in seeking a declaration, since there is no present anxiety or risk with respect to the Plaintiff's rights or legal status.
D. Ultimately, the court below should have first clarified the purport of what the Plaintiff sought through this lawsuit, and then examined and determined whether an interest in seeking a declaration is recognized. However, contrary to this, the court below, without taking such measures, proceeded on the premise that there was an interest in seeking a declaration with respect to the entirety of the Plaintiff's lawsuit, determined the merits of the Plaintiff's assertions only with respect to some of the provisions the Plaintiff claimed were disadvantageously changed, and then rendered judgment on the merits by granting the Plaintiff's claim as modified through the exchange of claims made in the court below. Such determination by the court below contains an error of misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the interest in seeking a declaration in a declaratory action, and of failing to conduct the necessary examination.
E. Meanwhile, where an employer disadvantageously changes working conditions set forth in the rules of employment without obtaining the employees' consent, the amendment does not have effect as against existing employees whose vested interests are infringed by the amendment, such that the previous rules of employment continue to apply to them; however, as against employees who, after the amendment, entered into an employment relationship by accepting the working conditions under the amended rules of employment, the amended rules of employment naturally apply (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da58364, decided June 24, 2011; Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84922, decided February 27, 2014).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, it can be seen that the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant on August 2, 2010, as a corporate support researcher with a one-year contract term, and on August 2, 2011, entered into a renewed contract with the Defendant with a three-year contract term, while agreeing to retroactively set the contract date and the commencement of the contract term to August 2, 2010; and that thereafter, the employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was renewed on a three-year basis. If so, the court below, upon remand, needs to additionally examine whether, at the time the Plaintiff entered into each of the renewed employment contracts as described above, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff accepted the working conditions under the already-amended Operating Guidelines at issue and thereby entered into a new employment relationship; the Court points this out in advance.
4. Therefore, without rendering judgment on the grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.
Justice Lee Heung-gu (Presiding Justice), Lee Ki-taek, Park Jeong-hwa (Justice in Charge), Kim Seon-su