2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. The Defendant, as a cooperation company of Hyundai Motor Company (hereinafter “Modern Motor Company”), is a company that mainly manufactured parts, etc. to make the body of a vehicle manufactured in the 1,2,3, and4, Ulsan Metropolitan City, but discontinued as of February 25, 2005, and the designated parties, including the Plaintiff, are retired workers on the 28th day of the same month due to the closure of the Defendant’s business.

(b) Motor vehicles, as a partner at the end of the period, can continue to operate a producer who will receive a new item if the item is a type of item, and there was an open bid for the two new items, such as M, a subsequent product of Aburbur in the modern motor vehicle around August 2004, and M, a subsequent product of Aburbur in November of the same year, such as beer or subsequent products.

C. Around 2002, the Defendant has been conducting negotiations on wage groups based on April 1 each year with the Korean Metal Trade Union (title omitted), a trade union (hereinafter “labor union”). At the time of negotiations on wage groups in 2004, the Defendant demanded wage discounts from the standard amount set by the Korean Metal Trade Union (125,445 won) and took part in the strike. Ultimately, on September 10, 2004, the Defendant drafted a written agreement (No. 2) stating the following matters:

(1) 65,00 won per month of basic grade (e.g., level:271 won). The Company shall make its best efforts for the owner of an item, and, if it is not possible to give an item, shall be increased to KRW 125,445 (e.g., level:523 won) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”).

(2) However, the determination that the owner of an item was not the owner is as follows:

(A) the corporation did not receive a new item and talk at an association or site;

(B) When the company was unable to continuously lead to the employment of all employees, and caused a non-employment proposal.

(3) The retroactive time shall be applied retroactively to April 1, 2004.

D. The Defendant participated in the open bid of Hyundai Motor Vehicle for a long time, but due to labor costs, the supply unit price was higher than the competitor, thereby falling into the bidding, and eventually, failed to wear the new item owner, even in the bidding held in November, for the same reason.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant’s failure to supply only the parts related to the existing item, which became more difficult to operate, led to a situation in which modern automobiles from October 2004, which had been supplied by the Defendant, entrusted development to another company from around October 2004 to another company (it appears that the situation in which the production chain was discontinued, such as the occurrence of the normal supply of parts due to the annual strike by the employees belonging to the Defendant, has occurred due to the fact that the risk of the production chain was kept confidential) cannot be maintained.

F. At the time of the instant agreement, the trade union and the company agreed to jointly make efforts for the share of quantity with the labor and management to guarantee employment after the agreement. From November of 2000 to November of the date of the agreement, labor union requested a new collective bargaining as a subject, and started the strike for attendance by demanding a new collective bargaining and taking measures against the double development of modern automobiles. On January 20, 2005, the labor union and the company resolved to conduct the collective strike by vote against and against industrial action around January 2005.

G. In the event that it is no longer possible to operate a company in a normal manner due to a new item failure, double development of modern automobiles, or a serious industrial action under labor union, the Defendant paid wages and retirement allowances to the designated parties, including the Plaintiff, based on the increase of KRW 65,000 per month of base salary (excluding each amount stated in the total amount of the statement of accounts payable) by selling all land, buildings, etc. owned by the Defendant on February 25, 2005.

2. The parties' assertion

Based on the agreement in this case, the Plaintiff paid only wages and retirement allowances calculated at 65,000 won per month, and sought payment of the difference, while the Defendant paid only wages and retirement allowances calculated at 65,000 won per month.

As to this, the Defendant’s above agreement is null and void on the condition that the existence of the company itself is remarkably unfair. (2) Although it was agreed to believe oral agreements, such as securing new quantities and compensating for damages on the part of the modern automobile, it was not implemented by the modern automobile, it was revoked by a deceptive act’s declaration of intent. (3) The labor union demanded renegotiation on November 2004 without any special reason and started a strike for attendance at work in January of the following year and operated a general strike in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement, and thus, it is invalid.

3. Determination

A. The key issue of this case is the validity of the agreement in this case, and such agreement shall be null and void if there are special circumstances to deem that the agreement between labor and management substantially lacks rationality, and whether the collective agreement has considerably lacks rationality shall be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the contents of the collective agreement, the process of its conclusion, and the management status of the employer at the time (Supreme Court Decision 9Da67536 delivered on September 29, 200, etc.).

B. The gist of the instant agreement is that “the company shall make best efforts for the owner of an item, but if it is not possible to give an item, it shall be increased to KRW 125,445 (in the case of a motor vehicle parts company, the number failure of an item shall be KRW 125,445 (in the case of a metal goods).” In the case of a motor vehicle parts company, even though it is difficult to endanger the existence of the company, it goes against the common sense to make an agreement to increase the wages of workers retroactively, and thus, it is deemed that there was a substantial rationality, barring special circumstances.

Accordingly, the following facts are acknowledged in light of the following: Gap 1, 2, 15, and 16 evidence, Eul 1-1 through 5,8, 11-24, 25, 26, 27, 28 (excluding the part not partially trusted), and 31 evidence, and the purport of the testimony of the non-party witness, and the testimony of the non-party witness.

(1) The Defendant continued to lower the unit price for supply to be selected in a new item tender of modern automobiles. On the other hand, the wage was increased due to the demand for unions by strike, and the deficit was accumulated from around 2000.

(2) In 2004, in the negotiations on wage groups, Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment demanded a wage increase of the amount set forth in the National Metal No. 1004, and the factory operation was suspended for more than 10 days due to the strike. Ultimately, as the Defendant was unable to supply to Hyundai Motor, the situation where the entire production of Hyundai Motor was put up against or suspended a day of delivery, and as a modern Motor, it was a situation where the manufacturer was suspended only a day and the damage amounted to 10 billion won was considered to have occurred.

(3) Accordingly, more than 50 persons, including modern automobile executives, visited the Defendant Company to enter the company, “if a strike is prolonged, they cannot terminate the cooperative business contract. If a strike is long-term, it would maintain the existing contract and make a new item or compensate for damages without claiming damages upon the normalization of the producer (in the event the strike of a collaborative company is long-term, it has been customary to urge the collaborative company to normalize the labor-management relationship by exercising pressure on the part of the contractor by type and type).

(4) In addition, Hyundai Motor also presented an opinion to the Defendant that “Although the instant agreement is contrary to the common sense, whether it would not be a separate problem even if accepting the proposal,” it was premised on the fact that there is no room for the Defendant to apply the original wage increase proposal (125,445 won per month) of the old union (125,45 won per month) with the intention of allowing the Defendant to receive a new item.

(5) If the supply continues due to the aggravation of a labor-management relationship, the Defendant, a collaborative company of Hyundai Motor Vehicle, was at an imminent situation in which the company itself is unable to exist, such as the termination of the cooperative relationship or the new item open bid, and the damages incurred due to the failure to timely supply due to the strike at the time, etc., led to an agreement with the content contrary to the common sense above.

(6) However, after the agreement of this case, the Defendant discontinued its business as of February 25, 2005 due to the double development of modern automobiles, the new item decoration, and the collective strike of the old group (the labor union continued to occupy a company for a long time until September, 2005, and the land and buildings owned by the Defendant were received KRW 150,000,000 from the Cho Il Industrial Co., Ltd., which purchased the land and buildings owned by the Defendant, after the closure of business).

C. According to the facts found above, the agreement of this case was made as a typical “equipment,” which aims to have more wages retroactively from the time when the company closes its business, by workers anticipated that the company will be faced with the crisis of the discontinuance of business when it is unable to receive a new item, and the defendant, if not entered such a demand, was made an agreement in the situation where the existence of the company itself is imminent to be at risk, and the contents of the agreement are null and void with substantial rationality.

In addition, in the event that the agreement of this case is realized, the defendant should pay wages of 125,445 won per month of increase to the employees who are the other party to the agreement, on the other hand, the defendant does not pay any consideration to the defendant, and rather is at the risk of respect, and the agreement of this case is also null and void as it is an unfair legal act because there is a significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration.

In addition, the agreement of this case was reached and the agreement of this case was reached at November, 2000, demanding the re-negotiation of labor union as a subject other than collective bargaining, and the collective strike was made on or around January 20 of the following year, and the collective strike was resolved through the pro-con voting of labor union around January 20 of the following year. In this regard, labor union cannot claim the validity of the agreement of this case even if it violated the agreement of this case at the time of agreement of this case.

The fact that the representative director of the defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 2,00,000 due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act on the grounds that the defendant's representative director did not pay wages and retirement allowances based on the agreement in this case is not an obstacle to such judgment.

The plaintiff's assertion does not seem to be any mother or with no reason.

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the validity of the agreement of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Appointeds and Omitted Items]

Judges Yellow-Jol (Presiding Judge) Kim Hong-il