Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act provides that "the act of dismissal or disadvantage to the worker on the ground that the worker has joined or attempted to join a trade union, or has attempted to organize a trade union, or has conducted other lawful acts for the operation of a trade union," as a type of unfair labor practices by the employer. Thus, in order to establish unfair labor practices under the same Act, the "justifiable act for the operation of a trade union" must be done by the worker, and the employer has to do so for that reason that the worker has suffered disadvantage such as dismissal of the worker, etc., and the assertion of the same fact and burden of proof shall be deemed to be an unfair labor practice (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2557 delivered on July 26, 191).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court held that Defendant 1’s Intervenor was a taxi company for business use. On June 3, 198, the Intervenor was employed by the 1st 5th son on the Plaintiff’s trade union’s 4th 6/10 of the total amount of transportation revenue in addition to the base wages, and that the Intervenor was employed as a driver of the said 4th 5th son’s 9th son’s 9th 5th son’s 9th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s 5th son’s son’s 196th son’s 5th son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s 19th son.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to unfair labor practices due to violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, insofar as the Intervenor did not dismiss the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s legitimate trade union activity, the Plaintiff did not have operated the taxi without inserting the facts that the Plaintiff embezzled taxi transport earnings and without inserting the factorings of typopic. The allegation that the dismissal of this case abused the discretion of disciplinary action and that there is no justifiable ground does not affect whether the dismissal of this case constitutes unfair labor practice. Therefore, the grounds of appeal on this issue are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)