바카라 꽁 머니

①바카라 꽁 머니 (Attorneys Noh Man Kyeong, Moon Ki Joo and Kim Da Yeon) represented a private corporation incorporated with the business objectives of trust management of copyrights to musical works.

②Case background: Although the workload for performance management had increased due to the revision of the related laws, it had been difficult for a company to hire additional staff. The company had abolished posts of accounting staff in certain local offices at which relevant workload had decreased due to the adoption of the virtual accounting system. Then, the company had transferred the accounting staff to the performance management post.

③Litigation: The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the company to confirm the nullification of the company’s measure to transfer them to another post on the following grounds: it had transferred them to another post although there had been no business necessity; they had suffered from a huge mental and physical burden as women as they were responsible for the task that they had never dealt with before; they suffered from disadvantages in relation to daily life; and it had unilaterally executed the decision without faithfully discussing the relevant matter with them.

The 13^{바카라 꽁 머니} Civil Division of the Seoul Southern District Court dismissed the claims filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2020, ruling that it found that the defendant’s decision to transfer the plaintiffs into another post had been necessary for business purposes, it was hard for it to deem that the plaintiffs had suffered from disadvantages significantly deviating from the level that they could normally tolerate, it found that the defendant had taken a faithful discussion procedure with the plaintiffs, and therefore the defendant had not engaged in the abuse of power and the defendant’s decision was valid.

The panel of judges determined: (a) in relation to the alleged business necessity, (i) the judges found that the defendant had needed additional staff who would be responsible for the management of performance events due to an increase in workload for the management of performance events; (ii) the defendant had needed to increase the number of workers in charge of the management of performance events through the transfer of the existing workers to the post (which meant that the defendant had had the necessity to change the placement of its staff); (iii) it had been appropriate for the defendant to transfer the plaintiffs to the performance management post (i.e., it had been appropriate for the defendant to have the plaintiffs included in the group of workers to be transferred to another post); and (iv) it was hard for them to deem that it was inefficient for the plaintiffs to perform the task of managing performance events; and (b) in relation to the disadvantages allegedly affecting the plaintiffs’ daily life, it was hard for them to find that the alleged disadvantages significantly deviated from the level that could be customarily tolerated by workers; and (c) in relation to the alleged lack of a discussion procedure that was required in good faith, they found that the defendant had taken a faithful discussion procedure with the plaintiffs prior to the transfer of them to another post.

After carefully analyzing legal theories and precedents pertaining to the validity of an employer’s decision to transfer employees to another post, our attorneys aggressively argued and proved that the defendant had had the necessity to transfer the plaintiff to the new post, the disadvantages allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs were not significantly beyond the level that workers could generally tolerate, and according to evidence collected by them, the defendant had taken a faithful discussion procedure with the plaintiffs on several occasions.

The decision has an implication in that it confirms the legal theory upholding that the transfer of workers is within the authority of employers and the employers have a significant discretion within the scope of business necessity.

Even though employers are deemed to have a significant discretion, since the occurrence of potential legal risks cannot be ruled out, it is necessary for employers to receive legal review of their decisions on the transfer of workers to another post.