Section 2: Individual Labor Relations
Chapter 9: Termination of Other Employment Relations
4. Declaration of Resignation Intention under Coercion and by Fraud, etc
4.1 Submission of Resignation Letters After Employer's Selecting Those Persons Subject to Personnel Reduction
| Supreme Court Decision on November 25, 2005, Case 2005da38270 | |||||
| * Plaintiff, Appellant: Park ○○ and 8 others
* Defendant, Appellant: ○○ Automobile Co., Ltd. 1. Facts: a. The defendant, in a situation where it was crucial to extend the corporate restructuring agreement, decided to reduce its managerial level staff by 10% as a visible measure for the agreement's extension, unilaterally selecting 58 employees, including the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs and others'), as the targets for reduction. b. The defendant held retirement explanation meetings exclusively for these individuals and repeatedly urged the submission of resignation letters, extending the deadline for such submissions. Those who did not comply were either removed from their positions or placed on suspension with pay. c. The defendant ultimately dismissed all employees who failed to submit their resignation letters by the end, processing all resignations uniformly as of December 31, 2000, despite the different timings of the submissions by the targeted individuals. 2. Court Judgment: a. Even if an employer receives a resignation letter from an employee and processes it in the form of dismissal at the employee's request, thereby terminating the employment contract, if the employee was compelled to write and submit the resignation letter without genuine intent, it effectively constitutes a dismissal because it terminates the employment relationship solely based on the unilateral decision of the employer. b. In a situation where it was critically necessary to extend the corporate restructuring agreement, the defendant decided to reduce managerial level staff by 10% as a visible measure for the extension, unilaterally selecting 58 employees, including the plaintiffs, as reduction targets. Following this selection, the defendant exclusively held retirement explanation meetings for these employees and repeatedly urged them to submit resignation letters, extending the submission deadline. Those who did not comply were either removed from their positions or placed on suspension with pay. The defendant ultimately dismissed all employees who failed to submit their resignation letters by the end, despite the different timings of submissions by the targeted employees, processing all resignations uniformly as of December 31, 2000. Considering these circumstances as indicated in the ruling, it can be seen that the plaintiffs submitted their resignation letters due to being unable to withstand the defendant's demands for submission of resignation letters, which were designed to avoid illegal dismissals of specific employees. They had no real alternative but to resign, and therefore, their terminations of employment were not due to voluntary resignation but were effectively dismissals executed through the unilateral decisions of the defendant. c. If an employee who has been dismissed receives severance pay without reserving any objections or raising any conditions, it is generally assumed that they have accepted the validity of the dismissal unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, filing a lawsuit to contest the validity of the dismissal after a significant period typically contradicts the principles of good faith and estoppel and is not permissible. However, even in such Case s, if there are objective circumstances indicating that the dismissal's validity was being contested, or if there are substantial reasons suggesting opposition to it, such as receiving payments under certain conditions, it cannot be uniformly assumed that the dismissal's effects are accepted just because the severance pay was received without explicit reservations. |
|||||
| Download : 대법 2005다38270.pdf | |||||
|
<<
< 1 >
>>
|
Table of Contents