[edit] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29452 delivered on July 9, 2002 [Affirmation of Nullity of Dismissal from Office]
【Main Issues】
[1] The requirements to dismiss employees for downsizing and the method of determining whether the requirements are fully met
[2] The method of determining whether employer had exhausted efforts to avoid dismissal, which is one of the requirements to dismiss employees for downsizing
[3] The method of determining whether the criteria for dismissal is reasonable and fair, which is one of the requirements to dismiss employees for downsizing
[4] The purpose of Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraph (3) which provides that the consultation must be made with the labor union or the representatives of employees, which is one of the procedural requirements to dismiss employees for downsizing
[5] It is held that, if there is a labor union made up of half or more employees in a work place, there is no reasonable or statutory ground to impose yet another procedural requirement that the employer have a further consultation, besides the labor union, with the representative of those employees who were to be dismissed. Dismissal for downsizing which was carried out after a consultation with the labor union cannot be deemed to be void for procedural reasons.
[6] The court below's judgment condemning the employer's decision to remove and lay off an employee as null and void on the ground that the employer abused its discretion in personnel management and made those orders in the course of carrying out dismissals for downsizing as a means of forcing an employee to resign, is reversed.
【Summary of Decision】
[1] According to Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraphs (1) to (3), dismissal for downsizing can be justified where there is urgent managerial necessity; employer has exhausted efforts to avoid dismissal; employees who were dismissed have been selected according to a reasonable and fair criteria; and the criteria for dismissal and the possible ways to avoid lay-off have been notified to the labor union comprising more than half of employees or to the representative of the employees at least 60 days before the intended date of dismissal. Employer is also required to consult the employees in good faith regarding dismissal. The urgent managerial needs in this context are somewhat broader than the immediate need to avoid bankruptcy. When there is a reasonable and objective ground to reduce work forces to cope with near future downturns, the requirement of urgent managerial needs may be satisfied. Other requirements mentioned above are not fixed or definitive, so their detailed contents need to be determined case by case, considering whether other requirements have been met. In order to concretely determine whether a dismissal for downsizing in an individual particular case meets the above-mentioned requirements and thus is legitimate, circumstances concerning each requirement must be considered comprehensively and as a whole.
[2] How comprehensively employer should exercise his efforts to avoid dismissal for downsizing is not predetermined or fixed. It varies depending on how serious business downturn is, why employer has to dismiss employees for downsizing, what kind and how big the business is, and how many employees the business has at each hierarchy. Also, if an employer consulted in good faith with labor union or with representatives of employees regarding how to avoid dismissals and reached an agreement as to who will be terminated, these efforts should also be taken into consideration in determining whether employer has exhausted efforts to avoid dismissal.
[3] Likewise, reasonable and fair criteria for dismissals are not stereotyped or fixed criteria and should be determined case by case depending on how serious business downturn is, why employer should cut back workforce, what the business is, how employees are composed, and what the social and economic situation is like. Moreover, if employer consulted in good faith with labor union or with representatives of employees as to the criteria for dismissals and reached an agreement, those efforts should also be taken into consideration in determining whether the criteria for dismissal are reasonable and fair.
[4] Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraph (3) provides that employer should notify in advance and consult possible ways to avoid dismissals and the criteria for dismissal with the labor union made up of majority of employees in the work place or representatives of majority of employees. This procedural requirement is to ensure that substantial requirements as described in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 31 are fully met. It is also desirable that even though the downsizing is inevitable, dismissals should be made through a consultation and mutual understanding of employees and employer.
[5] It is held that, if there is a labor union made up of majority of employees in a work place, there is no reasonable or statutory ground to impose yet another procedural requirement that the employer have a further consultation, besides the labor union, with the representatives of those employees to be dismissed. Dismissals for downsizing which were made after consultation with the labor union cannot be deemed to be void for procedural reasons such as employer did not consult with representatives of the dismissed.
[6] The court below's judgment condemning the employer's decision to remove and lay off an employee as null and void on the ground that the employer abused its discretion in personnel management and made those orders in the course of carrying out dismissals for downsizing as a means of forcing an employee to resign, is reversed.
【Reference Provisions】 [1] Labor Standards Act, Article 31 / [2] Labor Standards Act, Article 31 [3] Labor Standards Act, Article 31 / [4] Labor Standards Act, Article 31 / [5] Labor Standards Act, Article 31 / [6] Labor Standards Act, Article 31
Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act (Restrictions on Dismissal for Administrative Reasons) (1) Where an employer wishes to dismiss an employee on managerial grounds, there must be an urgent managerial necessity. For the purpose of such a dismissal, it shall be deemed that there is an urgent managerial necessity if there is a transfer, merger or acquisition of a business in order to prevent deterioration management.
(2) For the purpose of Paragraph (1) above, the employer shall make every effort to avoid dismissal and shall establish and follow reasonable and fair criteria for the selection of those persons subject to dismissal. In this case there shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender.
(3) Where there is an organized labor union which represents more than half of the employees at a business or business location, the employer shall inform at least 60 days before the intended date of dismissal and consult in good faith with the labor union (where there is no such organized labor union, this shall refer to a person who represents more than half of the employees; hereinafter referred to as "labor representative") regarding the methods for avoiding dismissals and the criteria for dismissal as set out in Paragraph (2) above.
(4) When an employer intends to dismiss employees in accordance with Paragraph (1) above, the employer shall report to the Minister of Labor in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of this Act if the number of employees to be dismissed is equal to or greater than the number which would be set by the Rules of this Act.
(5) When an employer dismisses workers in accordance with the conditions in the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3), it shall be deemed as a dismissal with proper cause under the provisions of Article 30 (1).
【Reference Cases】 [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da52119 delivered on December 22, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 96Nu8031 delivered on September 5, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 99Du1809 delivered on May 11, 1999
【Plaintiff, Appellee】 Han Byung-hoon (Law Firm Myoung In, Attorneys Yoon Jong-hyun and 5 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)
【Defendant, Appellant】 Woori Bank, Inc. (formerly Hanvit Bank, Inc.) (Law Firm Gwang Jang, Attorneys Jung Eun-hwan and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
【Court of First Instance】 Seoul District Court Judgment 99Gahap55101 delivered on February 11, 2000
【Court of Second Instance】 Seoul High Court Judgment 2000Na15908 delivered on April 11, 2001
【Disposition】 The decision of the court below shall be reversed. The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.
【Reasoning】 1. The court below duly found the following facts:
A. Korea Commercial Bank ('Commercial Bank') entered into a merger agreement with Hanil Bank Corporation on August 24, 1998 in an effort to rehaul its management structure when its continued existence was threatened by accumulated net loss. On September 30, 1998, in accordance with the old Depositor Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6323 of December 30, 2000) Article 38-2, Paragraph 1, Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation injected 3,264.2 billion won to Commercial Bank (the so-called 'public fund subsidy'). On January 6, 1999, it became the defendant bank upon completion of merger registration.
B. On January 22, 1999, the defendant bank entered into an agreement for the execution of detailed plans for normalization of management with Financial Supervisory Commission and Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation. Under the compulsory terms of the agreement, the defendant bank was required to take measures to increase short-term profit by endeavoring to reduce the number of senior employees (level 3 or upward) as far as possible and by selling off low-productive branches and affiliated companies.
C. Between 1998 and the first half of 1999, the defendant bank closed 260 branch offices. Its headquarter also underwent radical downsizing: 37 departments of Commercial Bank and 30 departments of Hanil Bank were consolidated into 34 departments, thus doing away with 33 departments.
D. On February 12, 1999, the defendant bank decided to terminate 356 employees consisting of 73 level 1 employees (50% of level 1 employees), 201 level 2 employees (40% of level 2 employees) and 82 level 3 employees (10% of level 3 employees) for the execution of plans for normalization of business performance and for reorganization through closure of branch offices and downsizing of the headquarter. A list of employees to be dismissed was drawn up considering age, duration of service and performance rating. The labor union was notified of the number of employees to be terminated and the criteria for dismissal. On February 20, 1999 the defendant bank announced a voluntary retirement plan offering a special severance payment of eight times the average monthly salary for those who retire early.
E. The plaintiff was a level 3 employee, born on December 5, 1946 and started to work for Commercial Bank on July 19, 1965 (33 years of service). He was included in the list to be dismissed due to his age and duration of service which were among the criteria for the planned dismissal.
F. After a series of negotiations with its labor union, the defendant bank came to an agreement to maintain the criteria for dismissal but reduce the number of employees to be terminated to 282; 73 employees of level 1 (50% of level 1 employees), 161 employees of level 2 (32% of level 2 employees) and 48 employees of level 3 (6% of level 3 employees). Accordingly, the defendant bank amended the list of employees to be dismissed by taking the younger and lower salaried employees off the list. But the plaintiff remained still on the list.
G. As for the voluntary retirement, all 73 employees of level 1 who were on the list, all 161 level 2 employees on the list and all level 3 employees on the list except the plaintiff (47 out of 48 level 3 employees on the list) applied for an early retirement (281 in total). In addition, 1 employee of level 1 and 4 employees of level 3 who were not on the list have also applied for an early retirement. On February 27, 1999, the defendant bank accepted all 286 applications for early retirement.
H. The plaintiff was working as the branch manager for personal banking at Icksan Central branch office. The plaintiff was notified that he had been included in the list of employees to be dismissed. On February 27, 1999, the defendant bank decided that the plaintiff was not suitable to remain in his post and therefore moved him to the post of an inspector in the personnel department. On March 27, 1999, the defendant bank gave to the plaintiff an advance notice of dismissal, and on the same day, laid off the plaintiff under the Personnel Management Guideline, Chapter 6, Article 4, Paragraph 5 (in other cases lay off is unavoidable due to the circumstances of the employee or the bank). After discussion at the Personnel Commission, the plaintiff was dismissed for downsizing on April 30, 1999.
2.Validity of the plaintiff's dismissal for the business purpose of downsizing
A. According to Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraphs (1) to (3), dismissal for downsizing can be justified where there is urgent managerial necessity; employer has exhausted efforts to avoid dismissal; employees who were dismissed have been selected according to a reasonable and fair criteria; and the criteria for dismissal and the possible ways to avoid lay-off have been notified to the labor union comprising more than half of employees or to the representative of the employees at least 60 days before the intended date of dismissal. Employer is also required to consult the employees in good faith regarding dismissal. The urgent managerial needs in this context are somewhat broader than the immediate need to avoid bankruptcy. When there is a reasonable and objective ground to reduce work forces to cope with near future downturns, the requirement of urgent managerial needs may be satisfied. Other requirements mentioned above are not fixed or definitive, so their detailed contents need to be determined case by case, considering whether other requirements have been met. In order to concretely determine whether a dismissal for downsizing in an individual particular case meets the above-mentioned requirements and thus is legitimate, circumstances concerning each requirements must be considered comprehensively and as a whole.
B. The court below held that the dismissal in question was void because the above-mentioned requirements had not been met. We consider under separate headings whether such a conclusion can be justified. As we mentioned earlier, we adopt a comprehensive approach in evaluating the requirements for dismissal for downsizing.
(1) Urgent managerial needs
The court below found that the defendant bank had a net profit of 340.6 billion won during the first quarter of 1999 and a net profit of 558.5 billion won, a operating profit of 1,099.2 billion won, and that 115% ratio of the appropriation fund in the first half of 1999. Based on these facts, the court below held that as the defendant bank's management conditions had improved through a series of restructuring measures, by the time of the dismissal in question, there were no urgent managerial needs to justify the dismissal for downsizing.
Before the merger, however, Commercial Bank was on the brink of collapse due to accumulated loss. On September 30, 1998, it received public fund subsidy of 3,264.2 billion won in equity from Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation. After the merger, the defendant bank recorded a loss of 1,987.2 billion won in 1999 (defendant's exhibit 27). Subsequently, from Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the defendant bank received 2,764.4 billion won in equity on 30 December 2000, and on September 29, 2001, it received further grant of 1,877.2 billion won on September 29, 2001. The defendant bank's net profit which briefly appeared in the first half of 1999 was due to the preliminary nature of accounting which did not fully reflect all aspects of its financial weakness. The short-lived appearance of black figures during that period cannot be treated as evidence of the recovery of the defendant bank's management condition which would obviate the need for corporate restructuring. Rather, the management crisis of the defendant bank was continuing at the time. Merger and subsequent downsizing of the defendant bank's departmental structure were necessary to overcome the management crisis. It follows that the dismissal of the plaintiff was amply justified by urgent managerial needs which existed at the time. The judgment of the court below was based on a different view. The court below erred in matters of law as to the meaning of urgent managerial needs and in matters of fact against the rules of evidence.
(2) Efforts to avoid dismissal
The court below found that when the plaintiff did not apply for voluntary early retirement, the defendant bank did not seek to move the plaintiff to a lower level post or make any other efforts to avoid dismissal and concluded that the defendant bank transferred the plaintiff from an active post to the post of an inspector in the personnel department in order to force the plaintiff to resign. Although the defendant bank did propose a voluntary early retirement plan and arranged alternative employment for some of leaving employees, the court below criticized the defendant bank's decision to lay off the plaintiff which was followed by his dismissal for being premature and viewed that the defendant bank did not exhaust all the efforts to avoid the dismissal in question.
How hard employer exhausted his efforts to avoid dismissal for downsizing is not predetermined or fixed. It varies depending on how serious business downturn is, why employer has to dismiss employees for downsizing, what kind and how big the business is, and how many employees the business has at each hierarchy. Also, if employer consulted in good faith with labor union or with representatives of employees regarding how to avoid dismissals and reached an agreement on whom to be terminated, these efforts should also be taken into consideration in determining whether employer has exhausted efforts to avoid dismissal.
In this case, Commercial Bank, facing the threat of bankruptcy, had to submit plans for improvement of management to the Financial Supervisory Commission and Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation and a merger with another bank, managing to survive mainly thanks to 3,264.2 billion won of public fund subsidy provided by Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation. The defendant bank stopped recruiting new employees, proposed a voluntary early retirement plan offering a special severance payment amounting to 8 months of salary, re-employed on fixed term basis some of those who volunteered to retire early, arranged alternative employment for some of the departing employees at daughter companies or related companies, and offered job training for some of the retiring employees who might wish to seek another employment. The defendant bank also consulted with its labor union, as a result, abandoned its initial plan to dismiss 356 employees, and agreed instead to dismiss 282 employees. Considering these circumstances, it is to be concluded that the defendant bank did make sufficient efforts to avoid dismissal. Also, the defendant bank was experiencing a serious surplus of employees after the closure of 260 branch offices and reduction of 67 departments into 34 departments in its headquarter after the merger. Without proving the defendant bank could avoid dismissing the plaintiff easily by transferring him to a different or lower level post as mentioned by the court below, it cannot be said that the defendant bank did not exhaust its efforts to avoid the dismissal merely because it did not seek to retain the plaintiff by transferring him to a different post.
The court below, expressing a view inconsistent with the above, erred in matters of law in misunderstanding the efforts to avoid dismissals.
(3) Reasonable and fair criteria for dismissal
The court below was of the opinion that in selecting the employees to be dismissed, each employee's wealth, health, number of dependant family members, if any, possibility of re-employment and other relevant personal circumstances should have been taken into consideration along with employer's interests; that the defendant bank, without any consideration to the protection of the employee's welfare, selected employees to be dismissed simply based on age, duration of service and performance ratings; and that the defendant bank didn't apply these criteria in a reasonable or fair manner in that employees who met any of these criteria were automatically selected to dismissed without any careful consideration or assessment as to other criteria (except for performance ratings, to which some consideration was given).
Likewise, reasonable and fair criteria for dismissals are not stereotyped or fixed criteria and cannot but be determined case by case depending on how serious business downturn is, why employer should cut back workforce, what the business is, how employees are composed, and what the social and economic situation is like. Moreover, if employer consulted in good faith with labor union or with representatives of employees as to the criteria for dismissals and reached an agreement, those efforts should also be taken into consideration in determining whether the criteria for dismissal are reasonable and fair.
In the instant case, the defendant first decided the number of employees to be dismissed among level 3 employees or upward, then chose the employees who were the oldest, who had the longest duration of service and who had the poorest performance ratings in the first place, excluding those who had very high performance rating notwithstanding age and duration of service. In order to secure the public fund subsidy, the defendant bank pledged to terminate as many employees of level 3 or upward as possible in its plans for normalization of management submitted to Financial Supervisory Commission and Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation. The criteria were chosen in consultation with and upon the agreement of the defendant bank's labor union. In view of the salary structure based on seniority which is unique in Korea, dismissing higher level employees who are relatively old and have worked for a long time means minimization of dismissals. Given the situation above mentioned and business necessity to settle down as soon as possible, the criteria for dismissal adopted by the defendant was reasonable and fair, even though the defendant bank could not give detailed consideration to individual interests of each employee.
The court below, expressing a view inconsistent with the above, erred in matters of law in misunderstanding the reasonable and fair criteria of dismissal for downsizing.
(4) Consultation in good faith with the labor union
The court below held that the purpose of Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraph (3) is to ensure that interests of employees should be adequately reflected through consultation with a body representing interests of employees with regard to the dismissal for downsizing. From this point of view, the court below concluded that where the dismissals for downsizing are only for a particular group of employees, employer should consult with labor union which represents majority of that particular group of employees or employee representing the majority who will be dismissed in case labor union does not represent them. The court below concluded that if the employees of that particular group had been barred or disqualified from joining the union in the first place, consultation with the labor union regarding the dismissal was pointless. The court below went on to find that because the dismissals were made to the employees from level 1 to level 3 who were disqualified to join the labor union in the first place, the defendant bank should have consulted with a person or a body representing all employees from level 1 to level 3, or with each representative of employees of each level. Since the defendant bank had only consulted its labor union which had little interest in the dismissals and which, to a certain extent, had conflicting interests with the employees from level 3 to 1, the court below concluded that the dismissal in question cannot be said to have been preceded by consultation in good faith with the employees.
Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraph (3) provides that employer should notify in advance and consult possible ways to avoid dismissals and the criteria for dismissal with the labor union made up of majority of employees in the work place or representatives of majority of employees. This procedural requirement is to ensure that substantial requirements as described in Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 31 are fully met. It is also desirable that even though the downsizing is inevitable, dismissals should be made through a consultation and mutual understanding of employees and employer.
Considering the above-mentioned provision's legislative intent, its wording, the extent to which such substantive requirements for dismissal as the urgency of managerial needs to carry out the dismissals in question have been met, together with the past practice where collective negotiations for wage and other employee benefits affecting all employees including levels from 1 to 3 were entrusted to the labor union and the fact the labor union vigorously fought and succeeded in reducing the number of employees for dismissal from original 356 to 282, the defendant bank's decision to consult with the labor union which represents more than half of all employees as plainly required by the wording of the above-mentioned provision can hardly be criticized.
There is no reasonable or statutory ground to impose, under these circumstances, yet another procedural requirement that the defendant bank have consultation with a representative of employees from level 1 to 3 who is yet to be elected under procedures which are yet to be defined.
The court below, expressing a view inconsistent with the above, erred in matters of law in misunderstanding the meaning and the purpose of Labor Standards Act, Article 31, Paragraph (3).
(5) Whether the defendant bank has dismissed the plaintiff in violation of agreed number of dismissals with the labor union
The court below held that the defendant bank had agreed with the labor union to dismiss 282 employees; that 281 (excluding the plaintiff) out of 282 employees who were on the list for dismissal and 5 employees who were not on the list had applied for early retirements; and that the defendant bank had over-achieved the target number for dismissal, so the dismissal of the plaintiff was void.
According to the record, however, the defendant bank initially drew up a list of 356 employees for dismissal and proposed a scheme for voluntary early retirement on February 12, 1999. At the end of February 1999, 5 employees who had not been on the list applied for early retirements. As the labor union insisted vigorously on reducing the number of dismissals, the defendant bank came to an agreement with the labor union on March 4, 1999 to reduce the number of dismissals to 282 by removing younger employees and relatively low waged employees from the list. Judging from the sequence of events (5 non-listed employees applied for an early retirement and, after that, the defendant bank came to an agreement with the labor union regarding the total number of dismissals.) and the contents of the negotiation between the defendant bank and the labor union which was keen to minimize the number of dismissals, the agreed number of dismissals (282) represented the number of employees to be dismissed apart from the 5 employees who were not on the list for dismissal.
Nevertheless, the court below, on a false assumption that the defendant bank and the labor union came to an agreement as to the number of dismissals (282) without knowledge of 5 employees who had voluntarily applied for an early retirement, concluded that employees who applied for voluntary retirement outnumbered the agreed dismissals. The defendant bank's dismissal of the plaintiff was accordingly held void for breaching the agreement with the labor union. The court below made a reversible error as to the misinterpretation of the contents of the agreement between the defendant bank and the labor union against the rules of evidence or the sound legal reasoning.
C. For these reasons, the court below's decision can not stand as it is flawed by a misunderstanding of the requirements of dismissal for downsizing or by erroneous evaluation of evidence before it, which affected the conclusion of its judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing out these issues are justified.
3.Validity of the defendant bank's decisions of February 27, 1999 (posting) and March 27, 1999 (laying off)
The court below duly found that the plaintiff was employed as a branch manager for personal banking at Iksan Central branch office when the defendant bank notified him that he was included in the list of employees to be dismissed for downsizing. The defendant bank ordered the plaintiff to the post of an inspector in the personnel department on February 27, 1999 and laid him off on 27 March 1999. The court below held that these decisions of the defendant bank were made to force the plaintiff to resign in process of dismissals for downsizing, that the defendant bank abused its discretion in personnel management, and that these decisions were void.
Regarding the defendant bank's posting decision of February 27, 1999, the defendant bank gave an explanation that as the intended dismissal of the plaintiff had been notified, it was inappropriate to retain him in active service. Considering the nature of work the plaintiff was doing as a branch manager, the managerial grounds for the posting decision can be regarded as reasonable. The posting decision did not adversely affect the plaintiff in terms of wage or treatment. Nor can it be presumed that the posting decision was made in order to force the plaintiff to resign merely because the posting was done in process of dismissals for downsizing. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which can suggest or indicate such a motive on the part of the defendant bank. Nevertheless, the court below concluded that the posting decision was made for the purpose of forcing the plaintiff's resignation, which is not supported by evidence at all. On the basis of facts which is not supported by any evidence, the court below took the view that the defendant bank abused its discretion in making the posting decision. The court below's decision cannot stand as it is flawed by a serious mistake in fact finding. The ground for appeal pointing out this issue is justified.
Turning now to the defendant's decision of March 27, 1999 to lay off the plaintiff, the record shows that the defendant bank came to agree with its labor union as to the number of dismissals and criteria for dismissal on March 4, 1999 followed by the completion of voluntary early retirement application procedures as of February 27, 1999. The defendant bank came to a decision to dismiss the plaintiff who was, among the employees listed for dismissal, the only one not applying for an early retirement. Because the plaintiff, on the other hand, was absent from work since the posting decision of February 27, 1999 and the defendant bank was unable to get in contact with the plaintiff, the defendant bank concluded that until the procedures for dismissal were completed, the plaintiff should be removed from active service in accordance with the defendant bank's Personnel Management Guideline, Chapter 6, Article 4, Paragraph (5) which provides that an employee may be laid off when it is unavoidable due to the circumstances of the employee or the bank. The laying off decision, therefore, cannot be said to have been made by abusing or misusing the defendant bank's discretion in personnel management.
The court below took the view that the defendant bank's decision to lay off the plaintiff had been made to force the plaintiff to resign. The defendant bank's decision to lay off the plaintiff was accordingly held void as the court below concluded that the defendant bank abused its discretion in personnel management. The court below's judgment was flawed by erroneous fact finding against the rules of evidence, insufficient finding of rationale or inconsistent reasoning. The ground for appeal pointing out this issue is justified.
4. Conclusion
For these reasons, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below for retrial and determination. This decision is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Park Jae-yoon (Presiding Justice)
Suh Sung
Lee Yong-woo (Justice in charge)
Bae Ki-won
- This is a legal document in the public domain according to Korean Copyright Law.
