(b) The scope of “claim between the parties to labor relations with respect to the terms and conditions of employment” as referred to in the definition of labor disputes under Article 2 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act;

(c) The case holding that the act of interference with business by the offices and stations of the subway Corporation as an industrial action, the act of violation of trust due to the free-on flight, and the act of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to the damage to property,

B. In the definition of labor disputes under Article 2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, the term “claim between the parties to labor relations with respect to the terms and conditions of employment” includes any assertion about an individual labor relationship and a group of labor relations, which includes not only the assertion of the rights under a collective agreement or labor contract (rights disputes) but also the assertion to establish a new agreement with respect to those matters.

C. The exercise of the right to collective action by workers is an unlawful act as it goes beyond the bounds of the legitimacy of an industrial action, and thus, is an unlawful act, in which the illegality under the Criminal Act is not denied only when it is legitimate. However, an act of interference with business due to the occupation of the subway office, an act of breach of trust due to the freeboard operation, a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. due to the damage of property, etc.

1. Article 30 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act provides that the Labor Relations Commission shall conduct arbitration, and Article 31 of the same Act provides that an industrial action shall not be conducted for 15 days from the date when a labor dispute has been referred to arbitration. Since each of the above provisions infringes on the essential contents of the worker's right to collective action, such as the theory of lawsuit, it is a repeated opinion of the party members that cannot be viewed as violating Articles 33 and 37 (2) of the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 190; 90Do602 delivered on September 28, 1990; 90Do52 delivered on May 25, 1990).

In addition, in the definition of labor disputes under Article 2 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, the term "claim between the parties to labor relations with respect to the terms and conditions of employment" includes any assertion about the individual labor relations and any of the collective labor relations. It is the opinion of the party members as seen earlier that it includes not only the assertion of the rights under collective agreements or labor contracts (rights disputes) but also the assertion to form a new agreement thereon. Unlike the above opinion, the subject of arbitration by the Arbitration Commission is limited to the so-called profit dispute, and the subject of arbitration by the Arbitration Commission is limited to the so-called profit dispute, and the so-called "rights dispute" as referred to in this case is not included, and thus, it cannot be accepted as it is an assertion that the decision to refer to arbitration of this case is unlawful and invalid. All arguments are groundless

2. The exercise of the right to collective action by workers is not punishable by the illegality under the Criminal Act only when it is legitimate. In any case, violence is not a legitimate act. At the time of the judgment of the court below, the defendants' act of interference with duties due to the occupation of the subway Corporation office, the act of interference with duties due to free and free operation, and the act of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. due to Damage to Property, etc. shall not be deemed an unlawful act as it goes beyond the bounds of the legitimacy of industrial actions. According to the timely evidence adopted by the court below, the court below's decision that found the defendants guilty is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, the violation of the rules of evidence, and the incomplete deliberation. The arguments are groundless.

3. Therefore, all appeals of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)