[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that Eul's trade union is a trade union under collective bargaining as of July 1, 2011 and continues to maintain the status of the negotiating party even after July 1, 2011 pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, in case where Eul's trade union, a national-level industrial trade union, comprised of employees of Gap company, was conducting collective bargaining from around March 201 to around March 1, 201, and agreed to resume collective bargaining, such as strike and lock-out leading to lock-out.

[2] In a case where: (a) a trade union, a national-level industrial trade union consisting of employees Gap, was conducting collective bargaining with Gap from March 1, 2010; (b) during such collective bargaining process, including strike and lock-out led to; (c) Byung Trade Union, which was composed of employees of Gap company, was established on July 1, 201; and (d) Gap requested Eul company to conduct collective bargaining; and (e) Eul company did not comply with Eul company’s demand for collective bargaining on the sole ground of the simplification of bargaining windows with Byung Trade Union, the case affirming the order of the court below that Eul trade union is in violation of Article 4 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which is a collective bargaining trade union at the time of July 1, 201, and continues to maintain its status after July 1, 2011, and Article 4 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

1. A. Articles 29(2) through (4), and 29-2 through 29-5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 930, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Act”) completely allow the establishment of multiple trade unions in one business or workplace, and introduce a system of simplification of bargaining windows in which workers establish or join a single business or workplace to determine a representative bargaining trade union and conduct collective bargaining in cases where there are not less than two trade unions that establish or join a single business or workplace regardless of their structural form. Article 1 of the Addenda of the Act stipulates as of January 1, 2010 as the enforcement date of the above provision on the simplification of bargaining windows, such as a representative bargaining trade union, etc., as of January 1, 2010. Meanwhile, Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act provides that “any trade union that is under collective bargaining at the time this Act enters into force shall be deemed a representative bargaining trade union under this Act.”

B. “Enforcement date of this Act” under Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act refers to the following reasons, rather than January 1, 2010, which is the enforcement date of the Act in principle, and it is reasonable to deem that July 1, 201, which is the enforcement date of the provisions related to the simplification of bargaining windows, was July 1,

In other words, Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act is intended to eliminate the disadvantages and confusion that a trade union under collective bargaining as of July 1, 201, when the Act enters into force, loses its status as a party to collective bargaining until then, and to minimize the disadvantages and confusion that the trade union should conduct collective bargaining by determining a new representative bargaining trade union. The legislative purport of Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act should be equally implemented with respect to a trade union under collective bargaining as of July 1, 201, when the provision on the simplification of the bargaining counter enters into force.

In addition, the effect granted to a trade union under collective bargaining at the time of the enforcement date of the Act pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act is that it shall be deemed a representative bargaining trade union. However, since the enforcement date of the provisions related to the simplification of bargaining windows is July 1, 201, the concept of a representative bargaining trade union does not exist on January 1, 2010, and therefore, if Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act is interpreted as the enforcement date of the Act as January 1, 2010, it would be deemed that the representative bargaining trade union does not exist at the time of the trade union under collective bargaining at the time of January 1, 2010. In addition, if it is interpreted as the enforcement date of this Act as January 1, 2010, it is difficult to interpret the status of a representative bargaining trade union as a result of the discontinuance of collective bargaining or maintenance of its status as a representative bargaining trade union for a long time after January 1, 2010.

C. Meanwhile, the purport of Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act is to protect the collective bargaining right of a trade union under collective bargaining at the time of the enforcement of the system of the simplification of bargaining windows, but does not restrict other trade unions' bargaining rights, and merely recognize the same status and authority as that of a representative bargaining trade union decided through the procedures of simplification of bargaining windows on July 1, 201 for a trade union that is not likely to reflect the intention of another trade union without undergoing the procedures of simplification of bargaining windows. In light of the above, it is difficult to deem that recognizing the same status and authority as that of a representative bargaining trade union determined by the procedures of simplification of bargaining windows on the ground that it is during collective bargaining at the time of July 1, 2011 conforms to the purport of the system of simplification of bargaining windows, the meaning of " deemed to be a representative bargaining trade union under this Act" as referred to in Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act shall not be deemed to be recognized as the status and authority of a representative bargaining trade union under collective bargaining at the time of enforcement of

2. The record reveals the following facts: (a) the creditor is holding a branch of the old U.S. branch case consisting of employees belonging to the debtor; (b) the creditor, from March 2010, was undergoing collective bargaining with the debtor from around March 201, but he/she went through difficulties in negotiations, such as strike and lock-out leading to such collective bargaining; (c) on November 3, 2010, he/she agreed to resume collective bargaining with the debtor; (d) the case consisting of employees belonging to the debtor was established on July 1, 201, and the debtor demanded collective bargaining to the debtor; and (e) the debtor is not complying with the creditor’s demand for collective bargaining due to the simplification of bargaining windows with the CF trade union.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, a creditor should be deemed to continue to maintain the status as a negotiating party after July 1, 201, pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the Act, as a trade union under collective bargaining at the time of July 1, 201.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the obligor’s failure to comply with the obligee’s demand for collective bargaining on the ground that Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act was not applied to creditors on the premise that the obligee did not undergo the procedures for simplification of bargaining windows. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)