Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, after holding a general meeting on November 26, 198 and submitting a report on the establishment of a trade union to the defendant as of January 5, 1989, failed to file an administrative appeal within the prescribed period even after being returned on February 1, 198 of the same year, which led to the lack of dispute over the above rejection disposition, and filed a lawsuit in this case through an administrative appeal. The plaintiff filed a report on the establishment of a trade union as of August 25 of the same year without any change in circumstances such as supplementing the above rejection disposition as of August 25 of the same year and filed a return as of September 18 of the same year. The submission of the report on the establishment of a trade union as of August 25, 1989 was completed in form for the purpose of dispute over the above rejection disposition after the limit of the appeal period under the Administrative Appeals Act and the Administrative Litigation Act as to the return disposition as of February 1, 1989. The lawsuit in this case is unlawful as the plaintiff's rejection of the above disposition within the prescribed period.

However, in a case where the return of a trade union establishment report was rejected and the litigation period was imposed without an objection to the disposition, the rejection disposition itself shall not be allowed. However, the defendant's rejection disposition of a trade union establishment report made as of February 1, 1989 is conducted for supplementation for procedural reasons that the name of the associated organization to which the report belongs was omitted. As such, since the re-application (submission or report) is actively prohibited or the application period is not limited, it is not effective to prohibit the re-submission of the report after the lapse of the time limit for litigation, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case seeking cancellation of the return disposition made as of September 18, 1989 by the defendant against the return report of trade union establishment as of September 18, 1989 cannot be deemed to conflict with the so-called non-legal power. Thus, the defendant's above assertion based on this premise cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

Article 13(1) of the Trade Union Act and Article 8-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which submitted a trade union establishment report to the defendant on November 26, 198 and submitted to the defendant on August 25, 1989, but the defendant did not state the name of an associated organization belonging to the above establishment report as of August 26 of the same year, and the defendant did not enter the name of an associated organization belonging to the Korean Trade Union Federation and submit a certificate of completion that can confirm the fact at the same time on the ground that the plaintiff did not submit a supplementary certificate under Article 8(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but did not comply with the request of the plaintiff for the supplement under Article 8(1)2 of the same Act, and the plaintiff did not comply with it (hereinafter the disposition in this case).

According to Article 13(1)5 of the Plaintiff’s Trade Union Act, the name of the associated organization belonging to the report on the establishment of a trade union shall be written. However, it is an optional provision allowing the said trade union to enter it in the event of an associated organization to which the said trade union belongs, and it does not necessarily mean a provision compelling a trade union to join the superior associated organization. However, it is deemed a compulsory provision to require supplementation and supplementation for the reason that the name of the associated organization belonging to the said report was not written, and the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the said report is unlawful.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Trade Union Act, when it is intended to establish a trade union, it requires that a report containing the following particulars be accompanied by the said bylaws. Subparagraph 5 of Article 14 of the said Act provides that one of the items of the said bylaws belongs to the associated organization. Under Article 8(1)2 of the said Act, where there are omissions or false facts in a report on the establishment of an industrial associated organization or an industrial associated organization, the said report may be demanded to be supplemented within a fixed period of 20 days and the said report may be rejected if not implemented. Meanwhile, Article 8(2) of the said Act provides that if a unit trade union joins an industrial associated organization or a nationwide associated organization requires the establishment of an industrial associated organization to be entered in that report, the said Act requires that the industrial associated organization or the associated organization be entered in that industrial associated organization be removed from regulation and the said Act requires that the industrial associated organization be entered in that report if it is not entered in that industrial associated organization or the associated organization to be entered in that Act, the said provision must be interpreted to the effect that the industrial associated organization should not be incorporated.

3. The defendant asserts that, since the 1960s, the labor organization in Korea has been maintained for more than 30 years since the 1960s as the structural form of Korea Labor Standards Federation, Industrial Training and Unit Labor Union, and has formed labor relations and has been conducted labor administration based on such organizational structure. In the case where the plaintiff's claim in this case is accepted, it may cause a sudden collapse of the labor union's structural and custom maintained for more than 30 years as above, and the power to negotiate with the labor union's structural division has deteriorated, and it is clear that it would result in enormous difficulties in industrial peace. Furthermore, it is obvious that our economy, which has lost its competitiveness even if it is not so, to go back to our economy that has lost its competitiveness, it is necessary to convert from the unified labor organization system to the original labor organization system, and that the above disposition should be revoked easily until full examination is conducted on whether it is necessary to convert from the original labor organization system, and on its detailed method, etc., the plaintiff's claim in this case should be dismissed.

However, workers’ right to organize and join a trade union on the basis of the right guaranteed by the Constitution and to enjoy substantial equality between labor and management based on autonomous labor-management negotiations through a trade union shall be deemed to be the highest public interest value to be implemented by modern labor law. Since modern labor law itself is consistent with public welfare, it cannot be sacrificed or restricted by temporary administrative convenience, and the Plaintiff’s claim in this case shall not be accepted, solely on the ground that the Defendant’s claim in this case is accepted, it cannot be readily concluded that industrial peace is impeded and our economy suffers serious compromise. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

4. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and this is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Mung-sung (Presiding Judge)