Seoul High Court Rules Dismissal of Security Guard at Apgujeong Hyundai Apartment 'Justified'... Reverses First Instance's Unfair Dismissal Ruling

(Photo by Yonhap News)

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Min-young] Residents of Hyundai Apartments in Apgujeong-dong, Seoul, who dismissed security guards citing reasons such as minimum wage increases, were ruled as unfair dismissal in the first trial, but the appellate court judged it as a legitimate layoff.

According to the legal community on the 15th, the Seoul High Court Administrative Division 7 (Presiding Judges Seo Tae-hwan, Kang Moon-kyung, Jin Sang-hoon) overturned the first trial and ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal case filed by the Apgujeong Hyundai Apartment Residents' Representative Meeting against the Central Labor Commission, requesting the cancellation of the unfair dismissal ruling.

The apartment residents' meeting directly employed about 100 security guards but notified them of dismissal in early 2018, stating that they would change the management method to consignment management.

This was due to the revised Apartment Housing Management Act stipulating that 'unreasonable instructions or orders outside of work must not be given,' making it impossible to assign tasks such as valet parking, and the increased cost burden due to the minimum wage hike.

The security guards who agreed to the dismissal and resigned were rehired and continued working by the consignment management service company.

However, Security Team Leader A applied for relief, and when the Central Labor Commission judged this as unfair dismissal, the residents' meeting filed a lawsuit.

The first trial recognized the Central Labor Commission's judgment of unfair dismissal, stating that the 'urgent business necessity' required for a lawful layoff under the Labor Standards Act was not recognized.

However, the appellate court ruled, "This dismissal is due to difficulties in security work management and operation following the amendment of the Apartment Housing Management Act, lack of expertise of the residents' meeting, increased burden from minimum wage hikes and retirement pay, and the decision to change the management method can be objectively rationalized," and "urgent business necessity is recognized."

Additionally, the court viewed that the residents' meeting made sufficient efforts to avoid dismissal by guaranteeing employment for all existing security guards and ensuring no age restrictions during the transition of management methods.

Furthermore, the court added that the dismissal criteria were reasonable and that sincere consultations with the workers were conducted.

The court concluded, "This dismissal was carried out with all the requirements of a lawful layoff and is justified."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.