A. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on Defendant Korea Metal Trade Union and Defendant Korea Metal Trade Union and its branch associations and the part on Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2’s claim against Defendant YOK Trade Union shall be dismissed in entirety.

B. On May 19, 2010, and June 7, 2010, the Korean Metal Trade Union and its branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union and its branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union and its structural change into a company-level trade union, which was conducted by the National Metal Trade Union and its branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union and its members’ general meeting on May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, it is confirmed that the decision was null and void between Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), Plaintiff 4 (Large-board: Plaintiff 2), Plaintiff 5 (Large-board: Plaintiff 3), Plaintiff 6 (Large-board: Plaintiff 4) and Defendant Bosong-gun Trade Union.

C. On May 19, 2010, and June 7, 2010, at the general meeting of the YOH trade union, the resolution to enact the regulations of the YOH trade union and the resolution to select Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court as the chairperson of the YOM trade union, and Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance court as the head of the secretariat of the YOM trade union is confirmed as invalid between Plaintiff 3 (Large-board: Plaintiff 1), Plaintiff 4 (Large-board: Plaintiff 2), Plaintiff 5 (Large-board: Plaintiff 3), and Plaintiff 6 (Large-board: Plaintiff 4) and Defendant YOM trade union.

2. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s Korean Metal Trade Union, the Defendant’s Korea Metal Trade Union and the Defendant’s Korea Metal Trade Union and the part arising between the Plaintiffs, the part arising between Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, and the Defendant Boeo Mando Trade Union, and the part arising between Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), Plaintiff 4 (Plaintiff 2), Plaintiff 5 (Plaintiff 3), Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 4), and Defendant Boeo Mando Trade Union are borne by the said Defendant.

(a) The primary claim

On May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, the National Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Metal Trade Union”) confirmed that “a resolution to make a structural change to an enterprise-level trade union by the National Metal Trade Union and its branch of the National Metal Trade Union and its branches to be a company-level trade union” was null and void between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Metal Trade Union.

(b) Preliminary claim

On May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, the National Metal Trade Union and its branches (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Boeo Mando Branch”) confirmed that the “National Metal Trade Union and its branch structural change to a company-level trade union” was invalid between the Plaintiffs and Defendant Boeo Mando Branch.

2. Request for second;

On May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, the Korean Metal Trade Union's 200 branch divided Defendant 1 into Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's preparatory request for its structural change into a company-level trade union; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's preparatory demand for its structural change into Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's primary demand for its structural change into Defendant 2's primary metal trade union; Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's primary demand for its structural change into Defendant 1's primary metal trade union's primary report on May 19, 2010 and June 7, 2010, respectively. The first instance court's joint decision on the amendment of Defendant 1's bylaws, including Defendant 1 and Defendant 2's primary report on the amendment to Defendant 1's primary report on the amendment to Defendant 1's primary report on the amendment to Defendant 1's primary report on the amendment to Defendant 2's primary report on the amendment to Defendant 1's primary report on the amendment to Defendant 2's primary report on the purport.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed in entirety.

A. Status of the parties

1) Defendant metal labor unions are nationwide industrial trade unions comprised of employees engaged in the metal industry, and Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision (hereinafter “Defendant Bo Mando Subdivision”) is a branch of the metal labor union consisting of the employees of Boeo Mando Subdivision Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seo Mando Subdivision”). Defendant Bo Mando Subdivision was established through the instant resolution on May 19, 2010 at Defendant Bo Mando Subdivision, as seen below (c).

2) Plaintiff 1’s chairperson of the metal labor union, Plaintiff 2’s chapter head of the metal labor union, Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), Plaintiff 4 (Plaintiff 2) is the director of the branch of the Defendant Yeo Mando Branch, Plaintiff 4 (Plaintiff 2) is the director of the Defendant Yeo Mando Branch, and Plaintiff 5 (Plaintiff 3), and Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 4) is the representative of the Defendant metal labor union or the Defendant metal labor union head as a member of the Defendant Yeo Mando Branch.

(b) The industrial action of the Defendant Yeo Mando Subdivision and the lock-out at the Yeo Mando Subdivision;

1) On February 4, 2010, five persons of No. 1 and No. 2 factories wishing to convert their production to their production positions among 13 employees in security service of factories on February 4, 2010 in order to improve the structure of their high-cost structure for security service workers, and the remainder was assigned to the second factory security service, and the first factory security service was assigned to the service company.

2) As a result, on February 4, 2010, Defendant Boeo Mando Branch rejected overtime and night work by asserting that “the outsourcinging of security services is in violation of a collective agreement, and thus ought to be withdrawn.” On February 5, 2010, Defendant Boeo Mando Branch rejected work and night work. On February 5, 2010, Defendant Bo Mando Branch decided to conduct industrial action with the consent of 92% by voting at the general meeting of its members, decided to conduct industrial action with the consent of 92%, and rejected two hours of overtime work. From February 9, 2010 to February 12, 2010, Defendant Boeo Mando Branch engaged in 10% reduction of production volume to 10 hours of work.

3) From February 16, 2010 to 06:30 on February 16, 2010, the Arasium was a partial lock-out with the content that Defendant Leseo Mando Subdivision completely prohibited the entry of its members into and departure from the company’s passenger-use factory and the entire commercial-use factory.

(c) The first general meeting;

1) When a lock-out has become long-term, the members of the Defendant Aneo Mando Branch constituted a “meeting of cooperative members for cooperative members” on April 20, 2010, and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial”) and the Nonparty were appointed as co-representatives.

2) On May 6, 2010 and May 10, 2010, the co-defendant 1 and 440 members of the first instance court requested that the acting director of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the defendant Song Man-do Branch convene a general meeting consisting of the cases of non-Confidence of executive officers of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the local council, the president of the site, the office of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the defendant Samsung Man-do branch of the first instance court, “where the acting director of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the general meeting,” and requested that the acting director of the defendant metal labor branch of the branch of the branch of

3) As to this, Defendant Boeo Mando Branch, as the president of the branch, responded to the efforts to convene a general meeting on May 13, 2010 with respect to Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1) who was detained for the crime of interference with business, etc. in relation to the said industrial action. Accordingly, Defendant Samsung Mando Branch, on May 13, 2010, responded to the motion to hold a general meeting in the racing branch if he refuses or neglects to convene a general meeting without any reasonable reason.

4) After that, on May 13, 2010, in the Daegu District Court and its branch, Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), and Plaintiff 2 (Plaintiff 2) were released after being sentenced to suspended execution as to the crime of interference with business, etc. related to the said industrial action, the head of the Posi District Office recommended that they hold a general meeting.

In addition, on May 14, 2010, 471 members, including Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial, requested Plaintiff 3 (Large-board Plaintiff 1), the president of the branch of the Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision, to call a general meeting with the agenda of structural change of the Defendant Mando Subdivision. On May 17, 2010, he requested the head of the Korea Coast Guard to nominate the general meeting convening authority. While the head of the Korea Coast Guard could not nominate the general meeting convening authority without undergoing the procedures related to convening the internal general meeting, the head of the Korea Coast Guard rejected the said request for nomination after May 24, 2010.

5) However, on the grounds that the structural change of the Defendant Boeo Mando Branch made it impossible to serve as an agenda item of the general meeting of the Defendant Boeo Mando Branch, Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), and Plaintiff 2 did not accept the demand for convening the general meeting, and Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance trial, on May 18, 2010, announced that the general meeting of Defendant Boeo Mando Branch will be held on May 19, 2010.

On May 19, 2010, the Defendant Boeo Mando Branch held a general meeting with 544 members (hereinafter “the first general meeting”) from among the 601 members of an industrial trade union on May 19, 201, and made a structural change into the Defendant Bo Man Mando Branch of an industrial trade union (hereinafter “instant structural change resolution”), which is a company-level trade union, (hereinafter “instant structural change resolution”), (2) the enactment of the bylaws of the Defendant Bo Man Mando Branch of an industrial trade union (hereinafter “instant bylaws enactment resolution”); (3) the co-defendant 1 of the first instance trial, who is the chairman and the first instance co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial”), respectively, passed a resolution on the appointment of each of the parties to the secretariat (hereinafter “instant resolution on the appointment of executive officers”).

6) After the filing of the report on the establishment of the labor union with each company of the racing market, Defendant Boeo Mando Branch, the president of the first general meeting of the Defendant Boeo Mando Branch, claiming that “The rules enacted at the time violate the rules of the Defendant Metal labor union and the Defendant Bo Mando Branch, and would be multiple labor unions upon acceptance of the said report,” and that the submission of the report on the establishment of the labor union was delayed due to this.

(d) The second general meeting;

1) The executives of the Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision raised an objection on the ground of the defect in the procedure of convening the first general meeting, while Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision continued to assert that it is possible to withdraw from the metal trade union, which is an industrial trade union, but that it is impossible to make a structural change into a company-level trade union. On May 24, 2010, the first instance co-defendant 1 and 471 union members, including Defendant 1, demanded the head of the Korea Coast Guard to nominate a general meeting convening authority again to the head of the Korea Coast Guard. The head of the Korea Coast Guard recommended Plaintiff 3 (large: Plaintiff 1) and Plaintiff 2 to convene a general meeting convening authority on the same day, and requested the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission to nominate a general meeting convening authority on May 25, 2010.

2) Of that, on June 3, 2010, the head of the Defendant metal labor-related racing branch revealed the position that it is desirable to resolve internal issues of the trade union on his own, and publicly announced convening a general meeting of Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision on the agenda of structural change on June 10, 2010.

3) However, on June 4, 2010, the Gyeong Mando District Labor Relations Commission made a decision designating co-defendant 1 of the first instance court as the person entitled to convene a general meeting on the ground that “the representative of the Gyeong Mando District Labor Relations Commission intentionally avoided or neglects to convene a general meeting, and in light of the circumstances, the above general meeting convened and announced by the president of the Gyeong Mando District Labor Relations Association on the grounds that the above general meeting was not feasible.” Accordingly, the head of the Poeo Mando District Labor Relations Commission appointed Co-defendant 1 of the first instance court as the person entitled to convene a general meeting of

4) As a result, on June 7, 2010, Co-Defendant 1 of the first instance court announced a general meeting on June 4, 2010, and accordingly, on June 7, 2010, the Defendant Boeo Mando Branch held a general meeting (hereinafter referred to as “the second general meeting”) at which 550 members among the 601 members of the association (hereinafter referred to as “the second general meeting”), and made a resolution like the first general meeting, such as the resolution on the reorganization of the instant organization (as 536 members, 97.5%), ② the resolution on the enactment of the instant bylaws (97.3%), ③ the resolution on the appointment of executives of the instant case (as 492 members, 89.2%).

5) Accordingly, on June 7, 2010, Defendant Aeo-Mon Labor Group reported the establishment of a labor union to the Mayor of the racing market, and the racing market accepted it on the same day.

E. Relevant provisions of this case

On the other hand, in relation to the instant case, all the provisions of Defendant Metal Labor Unions and Boseo Mando Subdivision are as follows.

[Rules of the Defendant’s Metal Trade Union]

Article 10 (Joining and Withdrawal from a Cooperative) Any person who intends to join a cooperative with the declaration, demotion, or bylaws of the cooperative shall submit an application for joining determined by the cooperative to the relevant branch or sub-council, and obtain the qualification of a member with the approval of the chairperson: Provided, That the application for joining and withdrawal shall be dealt with within 30 days after the submission of the application for joining

Article 20 (Functions of General Meeting)

(1) The following matters shall be resolved upon at a general meeting:

5. Matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the bylaws;

9. Matters concerning collective bargaining;

14. Matters concerning a merger, division, or structural change of a cooperative;

Article 49 (Establishment, etc. of Branch Offices)

(2) The establishment, division, merger, and establishment of a branch shall be determined by the operating committee of the branch, and prescribed by separate rules.

Article 50 (Operation of Branch Offices)

(3) The Association may establish and implement separate rules for the operation of branches for the autonomous and reasonable operation of branches within the scope of the Association's regulations, branch regulations, and rules for the operation of branches.

(4) Any part of the rules, branch regulations, and branch operation rules of the branch association shall be null and void.

§ 51.(Relation between unions, branches and sub-branches)

(1) A branch association shall comply with a resolution and decision made by the National Assembly of Representatives, the Central Committee, the Central Executive Committee, the Local Representatives, and the Local Steering Committee.

Article 66 (Power of Collective Negotiations)

(1) Collective bargaining rights shall be placed in a union and all representatives of collective bargaining within the union shall be the chairperson.

(2) The chairperson may organize a negotiating committee and delegate his/her right to bargaining to the bargaining unit of an affiliated organization.

(3) No right of negotiation may be delegated to a corporate negotiation unit.

【Defendant Metal Trade Union Members’ Membership Agreement Regulations】

Article 4 (Procedure of Withdrawal)

(1) A collective withdrawal through the relevant general meeting shall not be made, and the procedures for withdrawing members shall be dealt with after obtaining approval from the head of a branch, the head of a chapter, and the chairperson.

[Rules of the Defendant Boseo Mando Subdivision]

Article 4 (Activities) Sub-chapters shall be conducted for the projects and purposes of unions and branches.

1. Activities for the purposes and activities specified in the regulations;

2. Matters to be resolved by, and to be instructed by, cooperatives and branch deliberative bodies;

3. Activation of cooperative activities, strengthening of organization, and strengthening of power of strike through organic relations with unions, chapters, and branches;

4. Activities that shall be performed by reflecting the special circumstances of branch offices;

Article 5 (Composition)

1. He/she shall be comprised of workers at places of business, having obtained approval for joining in accordance with the bylaws of the association, including direct-employment non-regular workers (temporary, daily, short-term, short-term), indirect non-regular workers (in-house, office, service, and dispatch), and migrant workers;

Article 6 (Admission Procedures and Disqualification Requirements for Membership)

1. It shall comply with the rules of the association and the rules of the branch office for the discretionary management of unions;

X.(Organization)The Sub-councils shall have the following organizations:

3. The Standing Committee: 4. The Election Commission; 6. Other rules and regulations may be established;

Matters to be resolved under Article 13 (Matters for Decision) shall be as follows: Provided, That any decision contrary to the matters to be resolved by an association or branch office shall not be made:

5. Matters concerning the division, merger, and recommendation of branch offices;

6. Matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the branch rules;

24 (Scope of Officers of Partnership) The officers of unions shall be:

1. President; 2. President; 3. Office President; and

Article 36 (Collective Negotiations) Collective bargaining of the branch shall comply with the policies of the partnership and the branch offices.

Article 37 (Conclusion of Collective Agreement) The collective agreement of the branch shall be in accordance with the rules, this Article, and the policies of the branch, and may be concluded upon delegation by the chairperson: Provided, That the collective agreement of the branch shall be concluded by the chairperson after reporting to the chairperson through deliberation by the steering committee of the branch and after obtaining the approval of the chairperson, through the general meeting of the branch

§ 49 (Dissolution) Grounds for dissolution of a branch shall be limited to cases where all members withdraw from the branch or where a resolution or policy of the Central Committee of a cooperative exists.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 84, Eul's 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination prior to the merits

A. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the part of claim 1

1) Although the legal relationship between one party and a third party is not necessarily limited to the legal relationship between the parties, and the legal relationship between the parties or between third parties may be subject to its legal relationship. However, in order to have the interest to confirm the legal relationship, there is a need to immediately confirm the legal relationship by the confirmation judgment covering the legal relationship in order to eliminate the risk and apprehensions, and it is necessary to immediately confirm the legal relation as the object of confirmation, and it should be the most effective and appropriate means (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da46829, 46836, May 27, 2004, etc.). If the previous organization ceased to exist according to a resolution to change the legal structure as in the instant case, and at the same time the new organization was established, the above resolution becomes null and void, but only if it is confirmed that the said resolution is null and void, the risk or apprehension to the rights of the claimant or the legal status of the newly established organization and the newly established organization cannot be seen as an adequate and effective means to confirm the legal relation between the plaintiff and the newly established organization.

2) In light of the above legal principles, as long as Defendant Boseo Mando Association was established with Defendant Boseo Mando Association’s reorganization resolution of this case, as seen below, Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiffs 1), Plaintiff 4 (Plaintiffs 2), Plaintiff 5 (Plaintiffs 3), and Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiffs 4) who are the direct members of Defendant Boseo Mando branch’s association, as follows: (a) the resolution of this case was invalid; (b) the resolution of this case against Defendant Boseo Mando Association was confirmed to be invalid; but (c) the resolution of this case against Defendant Boseo Mando Association can remove risks or apprehensions related to the plaintiffs’ rights or legal status due to the resolution; and (d) the Plaintiffs’ primary claim against Defendant Boseo Mando Association, which is irrelevant to Defendant Boseo Man’s management, and the Plaintiffs’ preliminary claim against Defendant Boseo Mandon who was the previous organization of Defendant Boseo Manndo branch’s previous organization, is unlawful as it does not have any interest in the confirmation immediately.

B. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the part concerning plaintiffs 1 and 2 among the claims 2

In addition, in light of the above legal principles, unlike Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), Plaintiff 4 (Plaintiff 2), Plaintiff 5 (Plaintiff 3), and Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 4) who are the branch chief, office chief, or members of the defendant Leseo Mando Branch, it cannot be said that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, who are members of the defendant metal trade union at a nationwide scale, did not directly belong to the defendant Boseo Mando branch, but did not directly belong to the defendant Boseo Mando branch, and it cannot be said that there was any specific and direct present danger or apprehension about the rights or legal status due to the above resolution made by the defendant Boseo Mando branch or its previous organization, and even if there is a risk of domestic affairs, it cannot be said that there is a need to immediately seek the confirmation of the qualifications of the plaintiff 1 and the defendant metal union belonging to Plaintiff 2, who is an organization covering the defendant Boseo Mando branch, to seek the confirmation of the qualifications of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2, who were members of the plaintiff 1's main office.

Ultimately, among the claims 2, the part of the claim against the defendant 1 and 2 against the defendant Hara-Jon Labor Union is unlawful as it does not have any interest in immediate confirmation.

C. Determination as to the main safety defense of Defendant Bosio Nos. 1

As Defendant Boeo-ok’s labor union adopted a new resolution at the second general meeting convened according to legitimate procedures after the first general meeting with the same content as the resolution at the first general meeting, it asserts that the resolution does not have any legal interest in seeking confirmation of nullity, but, as long as the resolution at the second general meeting becomes null and void as the resolution at the second general meeting becomes null and void, there is still a legal interest in seeking confirmation of nullity even for the resolution at the first general meeting as seen below.

Therefore, the above defenses of the defendant Bosio Bano are without merit.

3. Of the claims 2, the judgment on the merits concerning the claims made by Plaintiffs 3 (Plaintiff 1), 4 (Plaintiff 2), 5 (Plaintiff 3), and 6 (Plaintiff 4)

A. Whether the resolution to change the organization of this case is null and void

1) Article 16 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) provides that, with respect to the organizational change of a trade union, matters concerning a structural change shall undergo the resolution of a general meeting and be subject to the attendance of a majority of the incumbent union members and the consent of two-thirds or more of the union members present. In light of the organizational change that, while a trade union remains in existence, the trade union shall succeed to the status of union members as the principal agent of the collective agreement before and after the alteration, it shall be allowed only to the extent that it is recognized as substantially identical to union before and after the alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du1734 delivered on April 11, 200). The branch or sub-branch of a primary and industrial unit trade union by industry or by region with independent business or workplace with the capacity to determine independent working conditions shall be deemed as an independent collective bargaining and independent organization with independent rules and the ability to independently conclude collective bargaining and its own collective agreement with respect to the pertinent organization or union members (see Supreme Court Decision 200Mo1648, supra.

2) In light of the following facts and circumstances, the above facts and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 14, 16, 32 through 37, 40 through 43, 64 through 70, and 84, which can be acknowledged in light of the above facts and the overall purport of the arguments, Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision cannot be viewed as an independent trade union capable of independent collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements with regard to matters unique to its organization or members while performing its activities as an independent organization with independent rules and executive organs. Accordingly, Defendant Bo Mando Subdivision cannot be the subject of organizational change.

① The rules of the Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision were enacted for the internal operation of the subdivision within the scope of the bylaws pursuant to Article 50 of the Rules on the Management of Metal Labor Unions, and most of these provisions are identical in content only when they are completely or partially identical to the provisions of the Rules on the Management of Metal Labor Unions (i.e., the former), and under Article 4 of the Addenda to the Rules on the Management of Metal Labor Unions, the latter shall be implemented in accordance with the matters to be resolved when there is the Central Committee on the Management of Metal Labor Unions, and the latter shall report to the general meeting of the subdivision or the representative meeting of the latter and automatically amend the regulations.

(2) According to the rules of the defendant Cho Man-do Subdivision, the defendant Cho Man-do Subdivision is engaged in activities for the business of the defendant metal unions and branches (Article 4); the members of the defendant Cho Man-do Subdivision shall obtain approval for joining the defendant metal union (Article 5); the entrance and secession and deprivation of qualifications of the members of the defendant Cho Man-do Subdivision shall be in accordance with the rules and branch regulations on the transition of the defendant metal union (Article 6); even at the general meeting of the defendant Cho Man-do Subdivision, the collective bargaining between the defendant Cho Man-do Subdivision and its branches shall not be decided against the matters to be resolved by the defendant Cho Man-do 4; the collective bargaining between the defendant Cho Man-do 4 and its branches shall be in accordance with the rules and regulations on the dissolution of the defendant Cho Man-do 9 (Article 36); the collective agreement shall be made by delegation of the chairperson of the defendant Lee Man-Ga Subdivision 9, which shall be limited to the case where it is finally possible after deliberation by the management committee.

③ Based on Article 10 of the Rules on the Elimination of Membership Procedures (No. 84), “Article 4(1) of the Rules on the Elimination of Membership Membership Procedures (Evidence A)” is not a collective withdrawal through a general assembly as seen in the foregoing basic facts, and the procedures for withdrawing membership shall be conducted after obtaining approval from the president of the branch, the head of the branch, and the chairperson.” The Rules explicitly prohibit a collective withdrawal through the relevant general assembly, and the structural change was deleted in the rules of the Sileo Mando Trade Union as a result of the alteration to the Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision’s meetings from the Sil Mando Trade Union.

④ According to Article 66 of the Rules on the Management of Metal Trade Unions, collective bargaining rights are under Defendant Metal Trade Union, and all collective bargaining rights within a union shall be the chairperson (paragraph (1)). The chairperson may organize a negotiating committee under his/her control and delegate his/her right to negotiate (paragraph (2)), and shall not delegate his/her right to negotiate to a corporate bargaining unit (paragraph (3)).

⑤ Defendant Boeo Mando Branch established an organization, such as a general meeting, a board of representatives, a standing executive committee, etc. (Article 10), a branch director, a site president, an office director, and a member of the audit committee (Article 24) as an executive officer of the union, but all of them are prescribed by the Rules on the Branch Regulations of Defendant Metal Labor-related Branch.

6) On February 5, 2010, the instant industrial action taken place on February 5, 2010, demanded that the president of the branch of the Defendant metal labor-management union and the Plaintiff 3 (large-scale Plaintiff 1) grant early approval for the implementation of the voting for the labor dispute action taken by the Defendant metal-management union to the Defendant metal-management union. On the same day, the Defendant metal-management union emergency management committee approved the voting for the labor dispute action taken place at the Defendant metal-management union’s meeting, and accordingly, it appears that the industrial action took place after the voting was taken place at the Defendant metal-management union’s general meeting, and even if the supplementary bargaining between the Defendant Leeo Mando association and the Boeo Mando charter did not result in the industrial action due to the difference between labor and management, the Plaintiff of the Defendant metal-management union applied for the mediation of the industrial dispute to the Labor Relations Commission.

7) The wage negotiations at the Defendant Yeo Mando Subdivision are conducted only through collective negotiations with users organizations of the metal industry, including the EMM branch, and the collective bargaining at the above unit of the branch was conducted by the head of the Defendant metal labor-management union and the head of the Defendant metal-management union branch as a negotiating representative and negotiating authority with the delegation of the chairperson of the Defendant metal labor-management union, and the collective agreement was concluded in the name of the chairperson of the Defendant Metal labor-management union.

(8) In the case of the supplementary bargaining by unit of a branch, negotiations shall be conducted under the supervision of the president of the racing branch delegated by the chairperson of the defendant metal labor union, and the details of the supplementary agreement shall be considerably involved, such as making a request to be reflected in the defendant metal labor union racing branch, and the president of the branch, etc. shall participate in the supplementary bargaining as a practical negotiating member, but the final supplementary agreement was the chairperson of the defendant metal labor union or the head of the racing branch delegated by him.

3) Therefore, among the resolution of the first and second general assembly, the resolution of the instant structural change to make a structural change into Defendant Boeo Mando Branch as a company-level trade union has significant defects in the procedure. As such, the resolution of the instant structural change is null and void without further examination on the remaining issues (Article 21 of the Rules of Boeo Mando Branch does not stipulate that “matters concerning structural change” shall be referred to in subparagraph 2, but there is no content that it shall be subject to the main sentence, and in light of the fact that Article 21 of the Rules provides that the merger and division of the subdivision shall be approved by the steering committee of the branch, it shall not be interpreted that the structural change of the subdivision is limited to a special resolution of the branch association (or a majority of the branch association members and a majority of the number of the members present at the meeting and a majority of 2/3 or more) with respect

4) As to this, Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision was an enterprise-level trade union, and it was made a subdivision of Defendant Metal Trade Union through a structural change resolution, Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision. However, under the principle of equity, Defendant Boeo Mando Subdivision's activities as an independent organization with independent rules and executive organs, and as such, it cannot be deemed an independent trade union with the capacity to independently conduct collective bargaining and sign collective agreements with regard to unique matters of its organization or members, and as such, Defendant Bo Mando Subdivision cannot be the principal agent of organizational change. Further, Article 4 of the Rules on the Procedure for the Admission to Membership of Defendant Samsung Mando Subdivision's Membership cannot be said to be the main agent of organizational change, and Article 4 of the said Rules provides that "The procedure for withdrawing from membership through the relevant general meeting is impossible, and the procedure for withdrawing from membership shall be dealt with without obtaining approval from the branch chairperson and the chairperson, even if the instant structural change is deemed to be a group withdrawal of association members, it shall not be deemed to be in violation of the above provisions, and therefore, it shall not be treated as an individual union member withdrawal from membership.

As a result, the above assertion of the defendant Leseo-gu's labor union does not seem to be any mother or are without merit.

B. Whether the instant bylaws were enacted and the resolution to elect executives was null and void

As seen earlier, so long as the instant structural change is null and void, the resolution to enact the instant bylaws and the resolution to elect the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court as the chairperson and the co-defendant 2 of the first instance court as the secretary general, as long as the instant structural change is null and void as it is based on the premise of the foregoing structural change.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lawsuit in this case concerning Defendant Metal Labor Union and Defendant Boseo Mando Branch, which is the part of the claim in this case, and the part concerning Defendant Boseo Mando Branch against Plaintiff 1 and 2's claim against Defendant Boseo Mando Trade Union among the claims in this case, are dismissed as unlawful, and the claim against Plaintiff 3 (Plaintiff 1), Plaintiff 4 (Plaintiff 2), Plaintiff 5 (Plaintiff 2), Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 3), and Defendant Boseo Mando Branch: Plaintiff 6 (Plaintiff 4) is justified, and all of them are accepted. Accordingly, the claim against Defendant Boseo Mando Branch and Defendant Boseo Man's Labor Union in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Yong-open (Presiding Judge)