The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, from around December 2009, the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant entered the instant trade union from around December 2, 2009, one half or more of the entire street cleaners and cleaning vehicle drivers employed in Jeju city immediately before the entry into force of the wage agreement entered into with the Defendant separately from the Defendant. Examining the records in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Article 35 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Act”).

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that cleaning vehicles and street cleaners constituted workers of the same kind as defined in Article 35 of the Trade Union Act. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 35 of

3. As to the third ground for appeal

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the holiday bonus stipulated in each of the instant wage agreements constituted ordinary wage paid fixed as remuneration for work. Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Jo Hee-de