[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the power sector that produces and supplies power for the production and maintenance of petrochemicalss with strong inflammable, explosive, and toxic properties constitutes "safety protection facilities" under Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that since the power sector that produces and supplies power, such as electricity, steam, etc., to produce and maintain petrochemicals with strong inflammable, explosive, and toxic properties, if it is not operated normally, it may cause large-scale explosion accidents due to leakage or incineration of the whole quantity of inflammable gas generated from the above chemical, and it may cause large fires due to the difficulties in the supply of fire-fighting water and the operation of the equipment for extinguishing disasters, and thus, the safety of human life and body may be specifically threatened, the above power sector constitutes "safety protection facility" under Article 42 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

Article 42(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that an act of suspending, discontinuing, or obstructing the normal maintenance and operation of a workplace's safety protection facility shall not be conducted as an industrial action. In this context, the "safety protection facility" means a facility that protects the safety of people's life or body, and the determination of whether a case constitutes a case shall be made by taking into account the nature of the workplace in question, the function of the facility in question, etc. specifically and comprehensively.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court comprehensively determined that the aforementioned factories of the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) were comprised of facilities producing petrochemicals with strong inflammable, explosive, and toxic properties, such as mercury, and power for the production and maintenance of the above petrochemicals by taking account of the following facts as a whole: (a) although the above factories were unable to maintain the safety of fire-fighting equipment, and the number of workers working in the above-mentioned storage and storage department due to the lack of capacity to maintain a large-scale fire-fighting engine equipment; (b) even if the above factories were operated by the Plaintiff’s members, 100 workers, who are members of the above departments, were working for three large scale of fire-fighting systems; and (c) if the above factories were not operated by the fire-fighting systems, it is difficult for the Plaintiff’s employees, other than the Plaintiff’s members, to check the operation of equipment through monitors, and the remaining number of workers who were operated in the above storage and supply of fire-fighting tanks, and thus, it is also difficult for them to be burned and incinerated due to fire-fighting temperature.

In light of the relevant provisions and the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the "emergency situation" of this case is sufficiently recognized where the plaintiff's employees working in the above power sector, who are safety protection facilities, participate in the total strike, and the plaintiff's employees engaged in the strike, and the plaintiff's employees engaged in the strike in the building in the power sector, and attempted to enter the above 1 factory power sector adjustment room in order to induce workers who did not participate in the strike to participate in the strike, is an act impeding the normal maintenance and operation of safety protection facilities, and in the above circumstances, the "emergency situation" of this case is sufficiently recognized without the resolution of the Gwangju Regional Labor Relations Commission pursuant to the proviso of Article 42 (3) of the Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the court below, based on its adopted evidence, acknowledged that the defendant ordered the plaintiff to suspend industrial action (security refusal) on the ground that the suspension of operation in the above power sector was caused by the suspension of a Aud factory and expected to cause enormous damage to human lives and facilities, etc. in the disposition of this case, since the facility constitutes a safety protection facility under Article 42 (2) of the Act, the scope of the industrial action ordered by the defendant to suspend industrial action is a dispute in the above power sector, which is a safety protection facility, and its attitude is clear that it is any act of suspending, discontinuing, or impeding the normal maintenance and operation (security work) of the above power sector. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case did not specify the scope and form of the industrial action ordering the suspension of operation of the Auds factory. In light of the records, the court below's findings of fact and decision are just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)