JIPYONG LLC

Jipyong News|Newsletter_Labor & Employment

[Recent Court Case 6] In case rules of employment were lawfully amended to be less advantageous than the terms of the employment agreement, the more advantageous terms of the employment agreement shall prevail over the lawfully amended rules of employment

2020.04.09

[Case No. Supreme Court decision 2019da297083 dated April 9, 2020] 
 
The Supreme Court held that, even in case the rules of employment were amended by lawful procedures to be disadvantageous to the employee, the existing employment agreement should prevail, unless there were special circumstances, such as the employee’s consent to the amended rules of employment. 
 
The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff was entitled to the bonus calculated by 550% because the defendant agreed in executing the employment agreement to pay the bonus of 550% in the event of working for one year or longer and the plaintiff never consented to the rules of employment which reduced the bonus. In response, the defendant argued that as long as the rules of employment were lawfully changed, they should apply to the working conditions of the plaintiff even if the amended rules provided for disadvantageous terms for the plaintiff. 
 
The lower court’s decision pointed out that the rules of employment were unilaterally written by the employer to collectively and uniformly establish the standards for working conditions while the employment agreement was based on the agreement between the employer and the employee. Therefore, the court clarified that, if the rules of employment and the employment agreement provided for working conditions differently, the employment agreement should prevail unless there were special circumstances, such as that the rules of employment were more advantageous to the employee. 
 
In particular, even if the rules of employment were amended following the execution of the employment agreement by lawful procedures to be disadvantageous to the employee, unless the employee agreed to the change under the rules of employment or there were other special circumstances, the existing employment agreement of the employee should not change as set forth under the rules of employment and the rules of employment should not prevail over the existing, advantageous employment agreement.

The lower court’s decision accepted the claim of the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the lower court’s decision.

Newsletter_Labor & Employment [Recent Court Case 5] Using dispatched foreigners employed by another employer is not the type of employment which is prohibited under the Immigration Act. 2020.05.14

Newsletter_Labor & Employment [Recent Court Case 4] An employee granted 30 days of childcare leave in total is eligible to apply for childcare leave pay even if not granted 30 continuous days of childcare leave. 2020.05.08

Back to List

Related Practices

Professionals

Korean Attorney
Jong Tak PARK
+82-2-6200-1653 jtpark@jipyong.com

Related Practices

Professionals

SHARE

Disclaimer

Limited Liabilities