2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The plaintiff was employed by the Korea Railroad Corporation and worked at the Busan Gyeongnam Headquarters or the Busan rolling stock maintenance team (the Korea Railroad Corporation and the labor union established with the organization of workers engaged in the railroad industry has approximately 20,00 members and five members of the Seoul, Daejeon, Permanent Residence, South, and Busan hereinafter referred to as "railroad labor union")'s Busan local headquarters B.

B. On June 26, 2013, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport converted the structure of the Railroad Corporation into a holding company (the passenger sector) and its subsidiary structure, and the west KX opened in 2015 was established by investing 30% of the Railroad Corporation and 70% of the public funds, but it is a subsidiary holding management rights and decided to introduce a competition system between the Seoul Yongsan KTX and the Suwon KTX as a subsidiary holding management rights." The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport confirmed and announced the Act on Development of the Railroad Industry, which is the main frame of the contents, and the railroad labor union decided and announced the development plan of the Korea Railroad Industry, through the "pro-con voting for industrial action for preventing the public film" from December 9, 2013 to December 31, 2013. Furthermore, the Plaintiff, a member of the Busan Central Headquarters, who was a member of the Korea Communications Commission, led to the implementation of the strike in accordance with the direction of the Korea Communications Commission's implementation of the strike in this case.

C. On February 28, 2014, the Korea Railroad Corporation, upon the completion of the instant strike, decided to take disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff planned and led the instant strike in the position of Busan Local Headquarters Dispute Countermeasures Committee C, etc.” (hereinafter “instant dismissal”).

D. On July 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of eligibility for employment insurance benefits on the ground that “the disciplinary action following the Defendant’s participation in the labor union strike was dismissed.” On August 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff was the head of the local headquarters and the head of the Busan local government office and the member of the Central Policy Committee, the highest group of labor union members who represent the local headquarters and should guide and manage all union activities; (b) approximately 8,797 union members nationwide for 23 days during the period of illegal strike (including 1,625 union members of the Busan local headquarters); and (c) led the Plaintiff to refuse to provide labor collectively; (d) the Plaintiff was entitled to receive employment insurance benefits on the ground that the project as prescribed in Article 58 subparag. 1 (b) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 101(1)1-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and thus, is not entitled to receive employment insurance benefits; and (d) the Plaintiff filed an application for examination.

was dismissed.

E. On May 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the dismissal of the instant case, rejected a request for unfair dismissal to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, the request for reexamination was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the said request for reexamination was also dismissed on March 5, 2015 on the ground that “the instant strike cannot be deemed a justifiable industrial action, and the Plaintiff planned, led, and instigated the instant strike in the position of Busan Local Headquarters C, etc., to take part in the instant strike.”

F. Meanwhile, the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court 2014No. 51) found Defendant not guilty on the grounds that “the strike in this case interfered with the transportation of passengers and freight of the Korea Railroad Corporation by force.” Although the legitimacy of the strike in this case is not recognized as of December 22, 2014, it cannot be deemed that the strike in this case was conducted at a time unforeseeable by the Korea Railroad Corporation, the employer, and even if the strike in this case was suspended due to the suspension of train operation and considerable damage was caused by the strike, it cannot be deemed as the result of the strike in this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that the strike in this case constitutes a force to suppress the employer’s free will to continue the operation (the criminal case in this case is in the process of appeal by a prosecutor).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the strike of this case could sufficiently predict the Korea Railroad Corporation, it cannot be deemed that damage was caused to the suspension of train operation due to the strike, etc. Even during the strike of this case, considering the fact that all essential personnel minimize damage to the Korea Railroad Corporation due to normal work, and other regions in the railroad labor union unlike the plaintiff are recognized as an employment insurance beneficiary, the disposition of this case is unlawful and unjust.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, Gap evidence No. 3, the fact-finding results of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(1) The Employment Insurance Act aims to contribute to economic and social development by providing workers with necessary benefits when they are unemployed (see Article 1 of the Employment Insurance Act), by facilitating their livelihood stability and job-seeking activities (see Article 1 of the Employment Insurance Act), and the grounds under each subparagraph of Article 58 of the Employment Insurance Act, which set forth the grounds for restricting eligibility for job-seeking benefits, are required

② Considering the fact that the Railroad Labor Union made it clear that the strike period has been made public several times before the strike in this case occurred, and that at least the Railroad Labor Union provided organic cooperation with the Korea Railroad Corporation with respect to essential operations and made the essential task performed normally even during the strike period, it cannot be concluded that the ground for dismissal in this case constitutes “a case where the ground for dismissal in this case seriously interferes with the project or causes property damage by leading illegal collective action” under Article 58 subparag. 1 (b) of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 101(1)1-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and that the Plaintiff planned and led to the strike in the position of the Busan Local Headquarters C, etc., the situation that the Plaintiff planned and led to the strike in the position of the Busan Local Headquarters C, etc. does not change.

③ Although the Korea Railroad Corporation was subject to disciplinary action on the ground that both B and C in Seoul, Daejeon, South, and North Korea, who were in the same position as the Plaintiff in the railroad labor union, participated in the strike in the same manner as the Plaintiff, the above B’s eligibility for employment insurance benefits was recognized differently from the Plaintiff’s case. However, there was no reasonable ground to treat the Plaintiff differently from the above B, and the instant disposition is also contrary to the principle of equality.

3. Conclusion

- If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-sung