[2] In a case where a new local agricultural cooperative was established in an area where a local agricultural cooperative was dissolved upon the resolution of its members and the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for about three months at the time of dissolution, the case holding that the dissolution of a former local agricultural cooperative does not constitute a disguised closure, which is an unfair labor practice, on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that a former local agricultural cooperative and a new local agricultural cooperative do not constitute a disguised closure, even if there was a purpose to impose a trade union on the dissolution of a former local agricultural cooperative

[3] In cases where an employer who dismissed an employee actually closes his/her place of business and the place of business where the employee will return to his/her place of business has ceased to exist, whether the order for remedy for the order of reinstatement

[2] In a case where a new local agricultural cooperative was established in an area where a local agricultural cooperative was dissolved upon the resolution of its members and the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry for about three months after the dissolution of the local agricultural cooperative, the case holding that the dissolution of the former local agricultural cooperative does not constitute a disguised closure, which is an unfair labor practice, on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the former local agricultural cooperative and the new local agricultural cooperative do not constitute a disguised closure, even if there was a purpose to impose a trade union on the dissolution of the former local agricultural

[3] When an employer closes his/her entire business and terminates his/her employment relationship with all of his/her employees, in principle, it belongs to the freedom of business management. If an employer who dismisses his/her employee actually closes his/her place of business and so the employee does not return to his/her workplace, the labor contract relationship premised on the existence of the company also ends effectively, and even if a remedy order ordering reinstatement is issued, it is objectively impossible to realize the order, and there is no benefit of remedy.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, including the costs incurred by the supplementary participation.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2, and 3.

A. The Intervenor No. 366-2 was a legal entity that had been engaged in financial and retail business with 50 full-time workers employed by the Intervenor Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiffs were members belonging to the NAC branch of the NAF branch (hereinafter “the NAF branch”) with those who were employed by the Intervenor Co., Ltd. and were working for the NAF.

B. On April 2, 2004, the Intervenor, after resolution of dissolution of the cooperative, dissolved with the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry on May 8, 2004. On April 9, 2004, the Intervenor dismissed the Plaintiff 4, who is a contracting worker, on April 9, 2004. The Intervenor dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff 4 on May 10, 2004.

C. Accordingly, the 35 participants, including the plaintiffs, asserted that the intervenor was unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices since the intervenor Nos. 35 engaged in disguised closure for the purpose of preventing the legitimate activities of the labor union. On June 10, 2004, the intervenor filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission No. 2004, 257, and Mano37. However, on August 3, 2004, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to dismiss the application for remedy for unfair labor practices on the ground that the intervenor No. 30 was dissolved, and it was impossible to recover labor relations with the intervenor due to the lack of the plaintiffs' place of business to return, and the dissolution of the intervenor No. 3 was not deemed a disguised closure of the labor union.

D. On September 10, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as 2004No145 and 656, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination on January 11, 2005.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) On December 5, 2003, when workers, including the Plaintiffs, establish a sub-committee, the Intervenor Doctrine took advantage of the labor union withdrawal and dissolution of the labor union by committing the acts of rashing labor union on several occasions. However, workers, including the Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiffs, did not comply with the demand for dissolution, etc. of labor union, and the Intervenor dismissed 35 workers, including the Plaintiffs.

(2) In fact, the Intervenor had been employed in the name of the Intervenor No. 3 months after the Intervenor No. 3 months’s dissolution, and purchased the building of the Intervenor No. 3’s main office after the incorporation of the Intervenor No. 3, and the type and scope of the business is the same as that of the Intervenor No. 3, and the primary customer who is the object of the business is the same as the Intervenor No. 3. In addition, 12 of the 58 employees prior to the dissolution of the Intervenor No. 358, the Intervenor No. 12 continued to work in the rice processing complex after the dismissal of the Plaintiffs and succeeded to the entirety of the Intervenor No. 3. 1, the Intervenor No. 3, a liquidator of the Intervenor No. 1, the agent No. 3, was the head of the Cooperative, and was elected Nonparty No. 2, the Intervenor No. 3, who had been employed by the Intervenor No. 1 as the principal member of the Nonghyup No. 3, and most of the Intervenor No. 3 members of the Plaintiff No. 3. 3. 3.

(3) After entering into the liquidation procedure, the Intervenor Agricultural Cooperatives: (a) produced rice processing complex in a normal way; (b) sold rice in the city after attaching its own trademark; and (c) transferred inventory assets, account receivables, sales deposit by-products, etc. to Hydul Agricultural Cooperatives; and (d) transferred the assets to Hydul Agricultural Cooperatives by a negotiated contract; and (b) transferred the official documents owned by NAF, various electric signs, computers, and cash withdrawal machines, etc. to Hydul Agricultural Cooperatives. Furthermore, the Intervenor transferred the status of transfer to Hydul National Agricultural Cooperatives following the Madul Development.

(4) Ultimately, the Intervenor’s dismissal against the Intervenor and the NAF is a same company. Thus, it is clear that the Intervenor’s dissolution of the Intervenor and dismissal against the Plaintiffs is a typical disguised closure, which is a means for the Intervenor to solely establish the labor union without the intention of the NAF to discontinue its true business, and thus, dismissal against the Plaintiffs is an unfair dismissal and unfair labor practice, and thus, the decision of review of this case should be revoked.

B. Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or the purport of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 3 through 6, 8 through 11, 14, 15, Eul evidence 17-1, 2, Gap evidence 18, Gap evidence 19-1, 2, Gap evidence 21-1 through 5, Gap evidence 23-1 through 6, Gap evidence 24, 33, 34, Gap evidence 35-1, 37-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 4, 6, 10, Eul evidence 12-1 through 5, Eul evidence 14, 15-1 through 7, and Eul evidence 15-1, 16-3, and 1, 5-1 through 6-3, respectively.

(1) Article 35(1) and (2) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that agricultural cooperatives’ dissolution shall take effect upon resolution at a general meeting and obtaining authorization from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Article 82 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that agricultural cooperatives shall have been established and operated as investments by local farmers under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act.

(2) From around 202, the Intervenor’s executive officers and employees provided rice equivalent to KRW 300 million to the Hanju City without the approval of the board of directors, but the said company suffered damages equivalent to the above amount due to the default on payment by the same person, and illegally loaned KRW 2.5 billion to a specific person four times from July 2002 to February 2003. From around December 2003, the Intervenor was found to have forged the Intervenor’s 5 billion number of votes at KRW 5 billion. On February 3, 2004, the Intervenor’s employees, who had worked at the Intervenor AF’s stop point, conspired with the financial fraud offender, thereby causing damages to the Intervenor. Meanwhile, on August 13, 2003, the Intervenor infringed on the Plaintiff’s 300 billion number of votes and caused the Plaintiff’s robbery. < Amended by Act No. 7009, Aug. 13, 2003>

(3) The Plaintiff et al. established a sub-committee on December 5, 2003. The Intervenor Nonghyup Co., Ltd. installed a banner stating, from January 2004 to January 5, 2004, the following: “The Intervenor Co., Ltd. was located in a village located within the jurisdiction of the Intervenor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”) under the name of the Intervenor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co.”), “Co., Ltd. constitutes anti-non-public labor union formation; and “the bamboo Co., Ltd. is a son’s pre-farmer’s union formation before the farmer?”; and “the farmer’s labor union formation, etc. of a single-style labor union formation to kill.”

(4) On February 26, 2004, the Intervenor AF did not have the financial status at the time of the occurrence of 1.4 billion won in 2003, but the Plaintiff held a temporary representative meeting on February 26, 2004 and decided to promote the dissolution of the NAF on the grounds of the moral hazard hazard and economic loss caused by the NAF employees, such as financial accidents, etc. In response to the occurrence of a deposit withdrawal situation, such as the withdrawal of 16.5 billion won per day on March 2 of the same year, the Intervenor AF was ordered to suspend business for six months from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Meanwhile, the Mutual Finance Depositor Protection Fund Management Committee took measures to provide agricultural materials and to continue rice processing business (RPC) to provide convenience to its members during the business suspension period.

(5) The Intervenor, on April 2, 2004, held a general meeting of 1,595 members registered in the electoral registry and decided to dissolve the agricultural cooperative by 1,401 members with consent of 1,401 members and 189 members who oppose the registration of the electoral registry. Accordingly, on April 8, 2004, the Intervenor agricultural cooperative received a decision from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to transfer the contract of the Intervenor’s credit business sector, such as the NAF to the NAF. In addition, on May 8, 2004, the Intervenor obtained the decision to authorize dissolution from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and on May 19 of the same year, registered a list of liquidators at the seat of its principal office.

(6) Meanwhile, around April 2004, most of the labor union members, including the plaintiffs, rejected the Intervenor’s order to return to work, inciting the strike by installing a tent and banner before the headquarters of the NAC, and using a loudspeaker, etc.

(7) Based on the resolution of dissolution and the decision of dissolution of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, the Intervenor Co., Ltd. notified the termination of the labor contract as of April 9, 2004 with respect to the Plaintiff 4, who is a contracting employee, and notified the rest of the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff 4 of the termination of the labor contract as of May 10, 2004. After that, the Intervenor Co., Ltd had been operating only rice processing complex for one year without conducting other credit business and economic business and conducted corporate liquidation procedures without conducting other credit business and economic business, and the liquidation procedures are almost completed except for the present related litigation and remaining business.

(8) As to 12 employees who did not join a trade union, the Intervenor notified the termination of the labor contract at the same time as the Plaintiffs, and reported the loss or modification of the 4th insurance. From May 11, 2004, the Intervenor hired them as a contracting worker and had them work as a liquidation assistant, and the liquidation assistant supported the liquidation work of the corporation or worked at the rice processing site.

(9) On June 27, 2004, in the area in which the Intervenor had been located, the NA was established and operated on August 11, 2004 after obtaining authorization from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. As of September 24, 2004, the duplicate number of cooperative members of the NAFFF and the NAF as of September 24, 2004 (1,914 for the number of farmers eligible to join the association) overlaps with 130.3% (63.5%) of the total amount of the NAF’s investment is KRW 2.197 million, and the total amount of the NAF’s investment is KRW 1.18 billion as of September 24, 2004.

(10) New Agricultural Co., Ltd. has employed a career-based employee through a new employment announcement, which includes some of the employees of the Intervenor.

(11) Rice processing complexes were originally purchased on condition that agricultural cooperatives were used for the convenience of farmers and the improvement of their welfare, which is the purpose of the development of static sovereignty projects from Pakistan-si, by the original intervenor, and were transferred to Shin Young-si, including government subsidies, at the request of Pakistan-si. Moreover, with respect to the land, etc., which was the location of the principal office of the intervenor No. 12, the intervenor No. 12, Nov. 12, 2004; Nov. 25, 2004; 8, Dec. 8, 2004; Jan. 18, 2005; and Mar. 2, 2005; and on May 25, 2005, each real estate was publicly announced at KRW 2.8 billion.

(c) Markets:

(1) Whether disguised closure is disguised

A disguised discontinuance of business refers to a case where a business owner continues to engage in business activities without the actual intent of the business owner: Provided, That dismissal of workers due to disguised discontinuance of business constitutes unfair labor practices and unfair dismissal, as a means to respond to the intended establishment of a trade union by workers or to impose a trade union by suspected of engaging in the activities of a trade union, such as the dissolution of a business entity, the dismissal of all union members, and the establishment of a new business entity.

Therefore, in this case, it is examined whether the intervenor's dissolution and the establishment of the new agricultural cooperative constitutes a disguised closure.

First of all, according to the above facts, it is recognized that there was a purpose to impose restrictions on the labor union in the dissolution of the intervenor agricultural cooperatives in light of the intervenor's attitude as to the establishment of the plaintiffs' sub-constition, the intervenor's closure or time of the business closure, the time of closure of the intervenor agricultural cooperatives, and the previous business performance.

(3) It is difficult to find that the new agricultural cooperative's capital and new agricultural cooperative's capital and new agricultural cooperative's capital and new agricultural cooperative's capital and new agricultural cooperative's capital and capital investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital and investment's capital.

Therefore, even if the intervenor did not have the purpose of undermining the trade union, the intervenor, the corporate owner, was free to abolish the company as part of the freedom of occupation selection, and the freedom is not restricted even in the case of motive for the extinguishment of the trade union. Therefore, the intervenor's closure of business cannot be deemed as a disguised closure of the trade union.

(2) Whether there is a benefit to seek an order for remedy

In principle, an employer’s discontinuation of the entire business of his/her management and termination of labor relations with all of his/her employees constitutes freedom of business management. If an employer who dismissed his/her employee fails to return to his/her employees by substantially closing his/her business, labor contract relations premised on the existence of the company also ends, and even if an order for remedy is issued, it is objectively impossible to realize the order (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2762 delivered on December 24, 191, etc.).

According to the above, as long as the intervenor agricultural cooperatives actually discontinued, the labor contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the intervenor agricultural cooperatives is terminated due to the termination of the plaintiffs' work or return workplace. Thus, the application for unfair dismissal relief sought by the plaintiffs does not have any interest in the request for remedy.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission which maintained the decision of the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission which dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for remedy for unfair labor practice on the ground that the Intervenor’s dissolution cannot be deemed a disguised or closed-down, or unfair labor practice. The review decision by the National Labor Relations Commission which maintained the decision of the Korea Regional Labor Relations Commission which rejected the application for remedy

3. Conclusion

Therefore, on different premise, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the revocation of the new trial decision of this case is without merit, and it is all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)