[2] The standards for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not justified

[3] The case holding that the legitimacy of the purpose of industrial action by the Korea Minting and Security Printing Trade Union shall not be recognized

[4] In a case where there are some provisions of a collective agreement under which an employer agrees with a trade union on matters that fall under the nature of management rights and cannot be subject to collective bargaining, the standard for interpreting the meaning of "agreement" under the said provision

[2] In a case where there are many other purposes pursuing an industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action. If it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the industrial action had not been conducted for the reason of the unfair demand, the entire industrial action shall be deemed to have no legitimacy.

[3] The case holding that the legitimacy of an industrial action is not recognized on the ground that the Korean Labor Union was involved in the industrial action on the ground of the improvement of working conditions such as wages, but its main purpose is the industrial action against the government's restructuring of public enterprises and the merger and abolition of the industrial action promoted as part of the industrial action.

[4] In a case where there are some provisions of a collective agreement under which the employer has to make a decision or implement a collective agreement with a trade union on matters that fall under the nature of management right that can not be subject to collective bargaining, the meaning of the "agreement" under the provisions should be interpreted by comprehensively examining the circumstances and situation of concluding such collective agreement, the relationship with other provisions of the collective agreement, and whether the trade union bears the responsibility for management based on the principle that the labor union is responsible for the responsibility of management.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Summary of the facts charged

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of interference with the business of the court below acquitted; "Defendant 1" is the Vice-Chairperson of the Korea Min Il (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Min Il") and defendant 2 is the chief of the Trade Union's organization; (1) Defendant 1 conspired with members who wish to take action against the National Democratic Labor Union Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "National Labor Union Federation") with them, and 8:00 on July 15, 1998 to 18:00 on the same day and July 13: 16:00 on the same day to 16:0 on the same day; from around 13:00 on the same day to 16:00 on the same day, the head office of the Korea Min Il-dae (hereinafter referred to as the "KOG") to take part in the industrial action and to improve the working conditions of the National Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "KOGG") to 9:00 on the first day prior to the discharge of Daejeon and Daegu.

B. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding regarding the first strike. Each industrial action was conducted under the condition that the industrial action was conducted on or before June 8 of the same year while it was conducted collective bargaining at the time of requesting wage increase for the construction work, and it was aimed at improving wages, which were working conditions in relation to collective bargaining. Each industrial action was conducted under the condition that the industrial action was not conducted on or before the closure of the industrial action, and that each industrial action was conducted on or before the closure of the industrial action was conducted on or before the closure of the industrial action. The court below found that the industrial action was conducted under the circumstance that each industrial action was conducted on or before the closure of the industrial action was conducted for the purpose of improving the labor conditions by strengthening the collective bargaining guidelines with the labor union that was actually conducted on or before the closure of the industrial action, and that the industrial action was conducted under the circumstances that the industrial action was conducted on or before the closure of the industrial action was not subject to improvement of the labor conditions, such as wages, and therefore, it was justified in its conclusion that each industrial action was still conducted under the industrial action.

C. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above fact-finding and decision of the court below.

(1) The issue of whether to implement corporate restructuring, such as layoff or corporate merger, belongs to a high-level managerial decision by a management body, which is subject to collective bargaining, in principle, and, unless there are special circumstances such as it is promoted with an urgent managerial necessity or a reasonable reason without any justifiable reason, the trade union may not recognize the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action, even if it inevitably entails changes in the status of workers or working conditions. Meanwhile, if there are various purposes pursuing the industrial action and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose. If it is deemed that the industrial action would not have been conducted if it would not have been conducted for the reason of unfair requirements, the entire industrial action shall not have legitimacy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5204, Jan. 21, 1992).

(2) In light of the records and records, it was revealed that the labor union's strike was caused by each industrial action in line with the guidelines and schedule for the total strike of the Democratic Labor Group while the labor union, while carrying out work and collective bargaining while carrying out work, and the labor union's strike. According to various inducements (such as labor union, behavior guidelines, etc.) submitted by the public prosecutor, it is in line with the guidelines and schedule for the unilateral restructuring of the government to withdraw the unilateral restructuring policy of the labor union. However, it can be seen that it was difficult to carry out the wage negotiation in order to conduct the industrial action within a legally legal framework (in light of the information situation or assembly trend report prepared by the police and the labor office, the resolution of the industrial action by the union members at the time of each industrial action was a democratic labor union, and the labor union members participated in the industrial action was jointly and severally, with the labor union members at the time of the industrial action and the labor union members at the time of the industrial action to the present situation of the labor union's strike in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

Nevertheless, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the purpose of the industrial action is justified, and found not guilty on the ground that it erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and thereby affected the remaining judgment. The prosecutor's ground of appeal pointing this out

(3) Examining the following facts in light of the records and health history of the second strike, the government-affiliated planning committee prepared a management innovation proposal covering the closure of the construction work around May 198 as part of the restructuring of public enterprises. The construction work compromises with the planning and budget committee intending to prevent labor costs by reducing 50%, while the construction work provided explanation about the above circumstances, the construction work's unreasonable wage negotiation proposal was continued to have been accepted. Ultimately, the planning and budget committee decided on August 4 of the same year that the industrial action was completed by 201, including the contents that the industrial action was conducted by the government-invested or funded company and the entire government-invested or funded company and that the industrial action was conducted by the union members at the time of 198 and that the industrial action was conducted by the union members at the time of 201. The government-invested or 4th anniversary of the above industrial action, the government-invested or funded company decided that the industrial action was conducted by the union members at the time of 199.

Thus, barring special circumstances such as the early implementation policy of the creative integration of the Corporation has been decided without operational necessity or reasonable grounds, the objectives of the secondary strike and its legitimacy may not be recognized by the legal principles as seen earlier.

Meanwhile, according to the collective agreement that was effective at the time of the above industrial action, the court below determined that the industrial action in this case is justifiable because it requires that the industrial action should not be agreed upon in advance, even if it is dismissed. However, if there are some provisions of the collective agreement that the employer agrees with the trade union as to matters which fall under the nature of the management right so that it may not be subject to collective bargaining, it shall not easily recognize partial waiver of management rights or significant restrictions on the employer's industrial action, and it shall not be deemed that the industrial action should be conducted with the opinion of the trade union and the labor union's opinion on the ground of the principle that the labor union is responsible for the management of the industrial action based on the principles that it shall be subject to the above collective agreement, and the meaning of the "agreement" as stated in Article 28 subparagraph 3 of the collective agreement that the industrial action in this case should be concluded with the labor union and the labor union's opinion on the fairness and fairness of management of the union and the labor union's opinion at the time of the above industrial action should not be stated in advance.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ appeal

The Defendants also filed an appeal against the lower judgment, but did not state any grounds of appeal on the petition of appeal, and the Defendants and their defense counsel did not submit the grounds of appeal within the lawful period. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants shall not be exempted from reversal, and the appeal against the guilty portion by the defendants shall be without merit. However, since each crime of conviction and not guilty guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the entire judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)