[2] The case holding that the modification of the above collective agreement does not extend to an employee who is not a member of the labor union since the general binding force under Article 35 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act cannot be granted to the above collective agreement, as long as the number of workers who join the labor union at the time of the preparation of the above collective agreement does not reach the half of the total workers who can join the labor union, although the collective agreement was modified by the above joint resolution of labor-management, such as bonuses, leave expenses, etc.

[3] The case holding that where a company at a business management crisis prepares a self-rescue plan containing the contents of returning bonus, leave allowance, etc. of officers and employees until the business normalization at the group of its affiliated organizations, the self-rescue plan constitutes the rules of employment since it contains a change in the working conditions of employees

[4] Where there is no trade union organized by a majority of workers in revising the contents of the working conditions under the rules of employment disadvantageous to workers, and it is necessary to consent by a majority of workers' meeting, the method of meeting

[2] Where a labor union prepares a joint labor-management resolution with which the employer and the labor union will return bonuses, leave allowances, etc., it shall be deemed that the existing collective agreement on bonuses, leave allowances, etc. has been modified by the above joint labor-management resolution, but as long as the number of workers who joined the labor union at the time of the preparation of the above joint labor-management resolution does not reach the majority of the total workers who can join the labor union, the above collective agreement cannot be granted general binding power under Article 35 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and thus the modification of

[3] The case holding that where a company at a business management crisis prepares a self-rescue plan containing the contents of returning bonus, leave allowance, etc. of officers and employees until the business normalization at the group of its affiliated organizations, the self-rescue plan constitutes the rules of employment since it contains a change in the working conditions of employees

[4] If there is no trade union consisting of a majority of workers to revise the contents of the working conditions under the rules of employment disadvantageously to workers, and it is necessary to give consent by the method of workers’ meeting, it is also permissible to gather opinions by exchanging opinions among workers under the condition that the employer's intervention or interference is excluded by the organization or unit department of one business or workplace.

Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "if more than half of the workers of the same kind who are ordinarily employed in a business or workplace are subject to a single collective agreement, the said collective agreement shall apply to other workers of the same kind who are employed in the business or workplace concerned," thereby expanding the validity of the collective agreement to workers who are not union members, and "workers subject to a single collective agreement" refers to only those who are subject to the general binding force of the collective agreement, and where the collective agreement does not limit the scope of application under the collective agreement, they refer to the whole members of the trade union which is the party to the agreement concerned, and where the collective agreement is limited to only some workers, they refer to the limited scope of application.

In this case, the collective agreement on bonuses, leave expenses, etc. has been amended by the joint resolution between labor and management on July 29, 1997 (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da30516, Jan. 19, 2001, etc.). However, as long as the number of workers who joined the labor union at the time of the above date does not reach half of the total workers who are entitled to join the labor union, the said collective agreement cannot give general binding power under Article 35 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. As a result, it shall not affect the effect of the modification of the said collective agreement to the plaintiffs who are not trade union members. Such a legal principle may not change because the parties to the conclusion of the said collective agreement expressed their intent the same as the collective agreement to be changed to the plaintiffs who are not related to the parties to the conclusion of

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the amendment of the collective agreement also affects the Plaintiffs. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the general binding force of the collective agreement.

However, according to the records, even in addition to the above facts, the arche Group, including car sales, conducted restructuring 5 affiliates on July 28, 1997 and arranged a self-rescue plan including the reduction of expenses by returning bonuses, leave expenses, etc. to the employees’ wages. The facts are as follows: (a) at the time of the resolution to return bonuses, etc. as above, all executives and employees of the arche Group were known through the media, arche Group, and the intra-company public relations media for car sales; (b) at the time of the resolution to return bonuses, the trade union of arche car sales held a resolution to return bonuses, etc. by each regional headquarters and affiliate branch, maintenance business establishment, and parts business office, and the majority of the employees agreed to the same effect as above and signed a document containing such contents, and the Plaintiffs agreed to the said resolution without signing it.

Therefore, when preparing a self-help plan at the Arabic group level, the car sales plan was formulated, and the contents of the plan were written to return bonus, leave allowance, etc. to the executives and employees of the company belonging to the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization until the organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Union until its normalization was normal, and the above self-help plan is subject to amendment of the Rules of Employment.

Therefore, the lower court’s conclusion that rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim of this case is justifiable and cannot be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal is rejected.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)