2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant Thai Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Thai Industries") confirms that the dismissal of the plaintiffs listed in the attached Table 2, as of the date of each dismissal listed in the attached Table 2, and the dismissal of the defendant Thai Island Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Thai Island") against the plaintiffs listed in the attached Table 3, is all null and void.

Defendant Thaie Industry pays to the Plaintiffs listed in the attached Table 2. From the date of dismissal to May 30, 2003, the money indicated in the above Table Section B from June 1, 2003 to the date of reinstatement of the above Plaintiffs, the money stated in the attached Table 3. The Defendant Thaie Island pays to the Plaintiffs the money stated in the above Table Section B from the date of dismissal to May 30, 203, and the money stated in the above Table B from June 1, 2003 to the date of reinstatement of the above Plaintiffs.

The reasoning of the court's reasoning concerning this case is as follows: Eul evidence Nos. 77, 78, Eul evidence Nos. 79, 79, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 81, 82, 83, Eul evidence Nos. 84-1 through 12, Eul evidence No. 85-1 through 54, Eul evidence Nos. 89, 90; and Eul evidence Nos. 89, 90 are added to the evidence of citing "1........................." among the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or supplement of the judgment as to the plaintiffs' assertion, it is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment on addition and supplement

(a)For urgent managerial needs:

(1) In light of the fact that the Defendants raised 15% wages of employees remaining after the date of the instant layoff, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant layoff is not an urgent administrative necessity, but merely for the purpose of causing damage to the labor union of this case, which the Plaintiffs joined.

(2) We examine the facts that the Defendants raised 15% of the average wages of workers in 2003, after the date of the completion of the layoff. However, in light of the above evidence Nos. 31, Eul evidence Nos. 31-1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 86-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 87, and Eul evidence Nos. 88-1 and 88-2, the Defendants’ assertion that the rate of wage increase was 10% or more of the wages of workers in 2001 and 202, on the other hand, the same company did not carry out the above wage increase in the number of employees in the same business year, and there was no need to resolve such gap and raise the morale of employees, but there was no desire to improve the wages of the Defendants in the previous 200-year labor market as well as the previous 30-year labor increase in the number of employees and employees in the same business year.

B. Regarding consultation with respect to the efforts to avoid dismissal and on good faith

(1) Although the plaintiffs accepted the 4.3 comparisons accompanied by the wage reduction that the Defendants asserted through the negotiations process in the instant Trade Union, the Defendants did not make any further negotiations with respect to the 4.3 comparisons, and instead, the Defendants asserted that the instant layoff was null and void because it did not make any effort to avoid dismissal through consultation with the labor union and good faith. Rather, Plaintiff 16,20, the negotiating members remaining in the negotiating channel for the labor union, which was the Plaintiff 16,20, which was the negotiating members, should block the negotiation counter, and refused to negotiate with the labor union that was lawfully formed after the resignation of the enforcement department of the instant labor union.

(2) Since the 10th of May 201, 201, the negotiations related to the reorganization reorganization between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 0th of May 1, 2001 were consistently asserted that the labor union 4th of September 2001 should be withdrawn and wages reduction. The defendants engaged in illegal strike 40th of September 4, 201, and the defendants decided that the non-party 1 would not be dismissed for 412 members of the Labor Union 10th of September 4, 201, and that the non-party 2 would not be dismissed for 10th of September 2001, and that the non-party 1 would be dismissed for 10th of September 2, 201 and the non-party 4th of September 2, 2001, and that the non-party 1 would be dismissed for 10th of September 2, 2008.

According to the above facts, in order to adjust the manpower structure needed to manage the company and reduce the burden of personnel expenses, etc., the Defendants tried to propose and negotiate various restructuring measures, such as reorganization dismissal, desired retirement, and wage reduction for about six months with the labor union, but the labor union in this case did not object to all reorganization measures which involve the reduction of real wages including the layoff system, and did not engage in illegal and illegal strike. However, even though they were temporarily proposed to accept the four-three-three-dimensional system with the wage reduction around September 2001, which had been accompanied by the wage reduction, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants and the labor union in this case were in the labor union in this case, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants were not sufficiently able to hold a consultation with the labor union in this case, or that the Defendants were unable to negotiate with the labor union in this case with the labor union in this case, or that the Defendants were unable to reach an agreement with the labor union and the labor union in this case since it was difficult to expect that the labor union in this case had been dismissed due to the actual circumstances of the labor union in this case.

C. Regarding fairness in the selection criteria for dismissed persons

(1) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(A) The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant layoff against the Plaintiffs is null and void, inasmuch as the Defendants’ subjective items are included in the individual score sheet made by the Defendants in order to select persons subject to layoff, and the employees, who prepared a letter of commitment to participate in illegal strike under the labor union of this case, are 10 points out and 0 points out are considerably unfair and arbitraryly unfair and arbitrary selection of those subject to layoffs.

(B) On the other hand, the defendants' special personal accidents and items were designed to supplement the fact that the period of investigation into the special personal accidents and the contents of reflection are short and are not properly improved. The target period is mainly related to the period of strike, so the employees' participation in the illegal strike of the union in this case or the number of participation days, etc. Therefore, it is recognized that it is necessary to set up such items or give points. Even if there is a possibility that the method of evaluation may somewhat intervene in the management of the employer, it is difficult to regard it as a remarkably arbitrary standard in light of the dividend points, etc., and it is not designated as the object of layoff without exception on the ground that the defendants received zero points from the special personal accidents and received zero points from the special personal accidents, so the criteria for selection of the object of layoff are unfair due to the establishment of the special personal accidents and its evaluation criteria. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination on Plaintiff 18’s assertion

(A) On January 5, 199, Plaintiff 18 suffered from an accident of protruding escape from a post signboard while working in the U.S. Island, and from July 2, 1999 to June 19, 2001, Plaintiff 18 received medical care for a total of 690 days (including hospital treatment for 131 days and 559 days). The U.S. C. C. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E

(B) In full view of the facts that there was no dispute between the parties to the layoff, Eul evidence Nos. 57 and 58, Eul evidence No. 91-1 and 2, the plaintiff 18 applied for additional medical care around July 2, 199. But the plaintiff applied for additional medical care on the ground that there was no work relation with the defendant's work. The above plaintiff applied for medical care to the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Service, and did not work at the work site. On October 28, 1999, "No. 4-5 nuclear escape certificate" of the above plaintiff's medical certificate was found to be an occupational disease, and the plaintiff notified the defendant that he would be subject to additional medical care for the above 10-day period of absence for the above 4-day period of absence, and the plaintiff's new medical care for the above 14-day period of absence was reported to the above plaintiff 20-day period of absence.

(C) However, in full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 4-6, 13, 20, Eul evidence 56, Eul evidence 59-1, 2- Eul evidence 92-1, 93-1 through 7, and Eul evidence 94-1 through 8, the defendant Jinish Island completed the preparation of individual points for its employees around August 28, 2001, and the plaintiff, including 18, who received low points for layoffs, did not raise an objection to the point point point point for each of the above reasons for the new objection period from 10.0 to 10.00 to 2001, the plaintiff's new notice of objection to the plaintiff's employees, including the above reasons for new objection to the point point for each of the above reasons for objection to be dismissed, and the plaintiff's new notice of objection to the new point for each of the above reasons for objection to be dismissed. The plaintiff's new objection point for each of the reasons for the new objection points to be dismissed.

(D) The criteria and procedures for the selection of the person to be dismissed shall be reasonable and fair, but if there is any error or error in data that is not the basis of the criteria for the selection of the person to be dismissed, it cannot be determined that the criteria and procedures for the selection of the person to be dismissed are rational or fair, unless such error or error has been made for the purpose of affecting the layoff. In this case, the judgment of the court below was erroneous for the reason that the defendant 18 did not correct the work data, on the other hand, the defendant 10 U.S. Island sent the above plaintiff's score indicating specific explanation to the above plaintiff and gave him sufficient opportunity to raise an objection twice together with the written objection. The defendant 10 U.S. Island refused it if there is a legitimate objection from the above plaintiff, and there is no reason to dismiss the above plaintiff 2 to be dismissed, and it is not desirable that the above plaintiff's selection of the person to be dismissed could not be seen as being delayed after it was neglected due to the lack of sufficient errors due to simple objection and vindication, and it is not reasonable to deem that the above reasons for the plaintiff's selection.

Therefore, the plaintiff 18's assertion that the criteria or procedure for the selection of a person subject to layoff was selected as a person subject to layoff because it is unreasonable and fair is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety due to the lack of reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in entirety.

[Attachment 1, 2, and 3]

Judges Ma Sung-man (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-jin applied mutatis mutandis to the case