2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the obligee;

2. The execution officer shall publicly announce the purport of the said order in the proper manner.

3. If the debtor fails to perform the obligation under paragraph (1), he shall pay to the creditor an amount equivalent to 5,00,000 won per day of delay until he/she performs the obligation above.

According to the overall purport of records and examinations, the following facts can be acknowledged:

A. The creditor is a nationwide industrial trade union whose target is the nationwide taxi workers (hereinafter “creditor labor union”). The debtor company is a corporation established for the purpose of the automobile transport industry, etc., which is the employer of the same transportation division in the creditor labor union North Korea site.

B. The original debtor company was established only by creditor labor union, and the creditor labor union was established from around December 201 to June 27, 201, and the creditor labor union was engaged in collective bargaining with the debtor company. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 1039, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter “former Trade Union Act”), the provision of the Trade Union Act on the establishment of multiple labor union and the simplification of bargaining windows therefor was enforced from July 1, 2011. As such, multiple labor unions of the debtor company were established with the same branch of the Korean taxi trade union (hereinafter “the same transportation labor union”).

C. On July 4, 2011, the debtor company publicly announced that the same transportation labor union was requested on July 1, 201 to negotiate on July 12, 201, and on July 4, 2011, the creditor labor union demanded the debtor company to negotiate with the debtor company and publicly announced that the trade union requesting the debtor company to negotiate with the debtor company is the same transportation labor union with 41 members and the creditor labor union with 37 members (hereinafter the above public announcement referred to as “the first announcement”).

D. On August 24, 2011, the debtor company publicly announced that the same transportation labor union, which belongs to a majority of the members of the trade union participating in the procedures for the simplification of bargaining windows, was a representative bargaining trade union pursuant to Article 29-2(3) of the former Trade Union Act, and concluded a collective agreement with the same transportation labor union around March 2012.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Judgment on the main argument

1) Claim to the creditor labor union

Under the premise that the same transportation labor union is a legitimate representative bargaining trade union determined pursuant to Article 29-2 of the Trade Union Act, the debtor company refuses to comply with the request for collective bargaining under the creditor labor union. In light of the following circumstances, the procedures for simplification of such bargaining windows are invalid, and thus the same transportation labor union is not a legitimate representative bargaining trade union. In addition, in the process of simplification of windows newly progress on October 10, 201, the debtor company consented to the creditor labor union's right to demand individual bargaining against the debtor company, and thus, the creditor labor union has the right to demand individual bargaining against the debtor company, and thus, it is sought the same decision as the purport of the request.

① According to the public notice of the instant case, the same transportation labor union was stated in July 1, 201, and the creditor labor union demanded each debtor company to negotiate for the simplification of bargaining windows on July 4, 2011. However, the same transportation labor union was established only on July 7, 201, and it was not in a position to make a demand for bargaining on July 1, 201, before its establishment. In addition, the creditor labor union had already been conducting collective bargaining with the debtor company and the debtor company. In addition, the creditor labor union had the right to negotiate with the debtor company pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda of the former Trade Union Act by the collective bargaining trade union under collective bargaining at the time of the enforcement date of the former Trade Union Act, so there was no need to make a demand for negotiating with the debtor company, and in fact, the debtor company did not have requested the debtor company to negotiate with the debtor company. The debtor company announced the false fact that the creditor labor union was also demanded at the time of the public notice of the instant case

② At the time when a debtor company proceeds with the procedure for simplification of bargaining windows, a creditor labor union, a same transportation labor union, and a former labor union existed in the debtor company. On July 201, a member belonging to the former labor union was four and the debtor company did not notify that the procedure for simplification of bargaining windows is in progress even though he was four. However, considering the number of the members of the former labor union, the creditor labor union members were 37 and the same transportation labor union members were 4, and the same transportation labor union members were four and the same transportation labor union members were not a majority.

③ According to Articles 14-4 through 14-7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act, an employer shall determine and publicly announce a major trade union within 24 days after the trade union requesting bargaining becomes final and conclusive. An obligor company has publicly announced the same transportation labor union as a major trade union only when the same period of August 24, 201 was 43 days after the first announcement of the trade union requesting bargaining, namely, the first announcement of the first announcement of the trade union requesting bargaining. This is invalid because it is contrary to the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act, which is a mandatory provision.

2) Determination

On October 10, 201, the creditor union union asserted that the procedure for the simplification of windows was conducted on and after October 10, 201, and the debtor company consented to the individual negotiation with the creditor union, and thus, the creditor union has the right to collective bargaining against the creditor union. However, as alleged in the creditor union, even if there is a procedural defect in the collective agreement concluded by the debtor company as the representative bargaining trade union in accordance with the procedure for the simplification of windows for collective bargaining conducted between the same transportation union and the creditor union from July 2011 and the procedure for such collective bargaining between the creditor union and the same transportation union and the representative trade union, the data submitted by the creditor union provided by the creditor union alone alone becomes invalid all of the above procedures for the simplification of windows and collective agreement became null and void, and it is insufficient to view that the debtor company started a new counter unification procedure from around October 2011, or that the debtor company consented to the individual bargaining with the creditor union and caused the creditor union to have the right to collective bargaining. Therefore,

B. Determination as to the conjunctive assertion

Furthermore, it is reasonable to interpret the “Enforcement Date of this Act” as July 1, 201 under the proviso of Article 1 of the Addenda to the former Trade Union Act, in full view of the purpose, purpose, and relationship with other provisions of the former Trade Union Act, etc., it is reasonable to interpret the “Enforcement Date of this Act” as July 1, 201 under the proviso of Article 1 of the Addenda. Accordingly, the creditor labor union union at the time of collective bargaining with the debtor company as a representative bargaining trade union under Article 29-2 of the former Trade Union Act has the right to demand collective bargaining against the debtor company as a representative bargaining trade union under Article 4 of the Addenda to the former Trade Union Act (Article 14-10 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act). Thus, if a creditor union fails to enter into collective agreement with the debtor company and the employer for a period from July 1, 2011, it shall be deemed that the creditor company and the trade union have the right to demand collective bargaining against the debtor company as a representative bargaining trade union under Article 4 of the former Trade Union Act.

In light of the overall purport of the records and examination, the aforementioned preliminary argument in the creditor labor union is with merit. On the other hand, the creditor labor union filed an application for provisional disposition of this case on May 17, 2012, and thereafter the examination of the case for provisional disposition of this case was completed only after June 19, 2012 for the creditor labor union and the debtor company's assertion and proof. Accordingly, even if the creditor labor union accepted the claim in the creditor labor union and the application for provisional disposition of this case was accepted, the creditor labor union of this case, even if the application for provisional disposition of this case was accepted, there is little time for the creditor labor union to demand collective bargaining and conclude collective agreement with the debtor company according to the collective bargaining claim held in accordance with Article 4 of the Addenda of the former Trade Union Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no need to preserve the debtor company by accepting the application in the creditor labor union of this

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the application for the creditor labor union is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-Gyeong (Presiding Justice)