The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Where the objective meaning of the language and text contained in a disposition document prepared by a juristic act is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized in accordance with the said language and text, and in particular, a collective agreement is concluded between a trade union and an employer through collective bargaining to enhance workers’ economic and social status. Thus, the provision of the clear text shall not be interpreted unfavorably to workers (see Supreme Court Decisions 2011Da86287, Feb. 13, 2014; 2012Da64253, Oct. 15, 2015; 2012Da64253, Oct. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply). In cases where there are different opinions regarding the interpretation of the language and text without clearly stating the objective meaning of the collective agreement, the relevant language and text, motive and circumstance for which the collective agreement was concluded, and the purpose and genuine intent that the trade union and employer intends to achieve through the collective agreement, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules to comply with the ideology of social justice and equity.

2. The court below acknowledged the fact that "the non-regular leave" in the labor-management agreement of this case prepared by the defendant and the labor union of this case in the opposite cooperation can be conducted by circular work according to the production quantity after a lapse of one year, and that the labor union of this case should be held by two consecutive workers a week in a practical way." The meaning of the text is that the defendant accepted the plan required by the labor union of this case, "the non-regular leave shall be restored to the original state after a lapse of one year regardless of the production quantity, but if the production quantity falls short, the circular leave shall be implemented for both the unpaid leave and the previous workers, and in this case, the scope of circular leave shall be minimum by implementing two consecutive workers a week." The court below rejected all the arguments by the following purport.

A. The labor-management agreement of this case only allows circular work to be conducted according to the quantity of production, and does not impose a duty of reinstatement without any condition after one year, and uses the term of circular work instead of circular leave. In addition, in light of the scale of human resources required for the two consecutive weeks in the daytime, it is not necessary to implement circular leave, and thus, it is not necessary to implement circular leave. Thus, the two consecutive weeks in the daytime are not a practical plan to implement circular leave.

B. On the other hand, there is no circumstance that the defendant, who consistently presented the plan to implement the circular leave of absence since 2012 that is expected to normalize the management of the trade union, has renounced his previous policies. Rather, the negotiation power of the trade union of this case has deteriorated, while the defendant's negotiating power has been relatively strengthened. In addition, even though the defendant and the trade union of this case have used only the terms of circular leave in the process of negotiations, and there was no lack using the terms of circular leave, the term of circular leave was used in the labor-management agreement of this case, and there was no doubt or objection as to the fact that the trade union of this case stated it as circular leave instead of circular leave of absence.

C. There was no discussion on circular leave in subsequent negotiations in accordance with the labor-management agreement of this case, and the trade union of this case did not demand the discussion thereof.

D. It cannot be deemed that the time of reinstatement according to the production volume was a bad condition as much as the instant trade union could not accept it, compared to those determined by the future time limit for determination. In fact, the Defendant would be able to achieve the production volume necessary to partially implement two classes in the last consecutive week in 2013, and accordingly, implemented the measures of reinstatement for all unpaid retirees, including the Plaintiffs on March 1, 2013.

3. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of a collective agreement, which is a disposal document, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

4. 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 Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jong-il