beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.27 2017나42875

임금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in the following 2.1. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[However, the Co-Plaintiff A, B, C, and Co-Defendant E Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co-Defendant E”).

2) On the 11th page 5 of the judgment of the first instance, the following parts shall be added to the part which is dismissed or added. 2. 2. 2. The following parts shall be added.

The No. 1 of the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s manual for application of the limit of working hours (No. 1) and the question reply (No. 3) to the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office (Seoul Gangnam Branch Office) state that industrial action does not constitute a job subject to exemption of working hours due to activities unrelated to the labor-management joint interests in the workplace. However, as seen earlier, industrial action-related activities constitute an “work prescribed by this Act or any other Act” as provided by Article 24(4) of the Trade Union and Labor Act as a trade union under the Trade Union and Labor Act, and further, industrial action-related activities are not necessarily determined to be in conflict with the development of sound labor-management relations, and thus, they constitute “maintenance and management of a trade union for the development of sound labor-management relations” as provided by Article 24(4) of the Trade Union and Labor, and as long as there are no particular grounds to limit only the “work subject to exemption of working hours in the workplace”, the above interpretation by the Ministry of Employment and Labor and the Seoul Regional Labor Office is difficult to accept” as follows.

A stock company E and the defendant are separate corporations, each of which is separate from each other, and as seen earlier.