In light of the provisions of Article 16 (1) 1, 2, (2), Article 17 (1) and (4) of the Trade Union Act, where a trade union has a board of representatives replacing the general meeting separately from the general meeting in light of the regulations, the board of representatives may make a resolution on the matters determined as the resolution of the general meeting, barring any special circumstances, and under the Trade Union Act, the Gap trade union has a board of representatives replacing the general meeting separately from the general meeting pursuant to the previous regulations, and under Article 17 (4) of the Trade Union Act, since the provisions concerning the general meeting apply mutatis mutandis to the board of representatives, it shall be deemed that the board of representatives may amend the regulations which are one of the functions of the general meeting as a matter of course at the board of representatives, and under the previous regulations, it shall be reasonable to deem that the amendment of the regulations of the Gap trade union may be all made at the general meeting and the board of representatives, and therefore, it shall not be deemed null and void.

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

2. Ascertainment that the operation rules of the Special Committee for the enforcement of the organizing of organized workers established by the Defendant on August 25, 2017 are null and void.

3. The defendant's temporary representative meeting on July 9, 2018 confirms that a resolution on the agenda stated in Attached Form 2 is null and void.

A. The defendant is a trade union of a branch under the Korean Metal Trade Union, and the plaintiff is a defendant's member.

B. On December 2016, the Defendant’s modern middle industry trade union, a telegraph, passed a resolution to change its organization into the Korea Metal Trade Union, an industrial trade union around the end of the same year, taking into account the organization reorganization, changed situation, etc. of the modern middle industry (hereinafter “former Heavy industry trade union”). As a result, not a single place of business, but a single place of business, the situation has led to the situation that the companies divided in the modern middle industry (main) and the employees belonging to the company affiliated with the company affiliated with the company affiliated with the company affiliated with the company, and the company affiliated with the company affiliated with the company affiliated with the company, the Defendant shall organize and supplement the Special Committee’s amendments to the Regulations on January 2017 by organizing and operating separate rules and regulations for the conversion into metal labor at the temporary representative conference held around January 2017.

C. The Defendant, on August 2017 and September 201 of the same year, rejected the amendment of the regulations made by the Special Committee through a temporary representatives conference on two occasions. On September 21 of the same year, the Defendant opened a temporary representatives conference and proposed a new amendment of the regulations. However, on September 21 of the same year, only 148 registered representatives, 132 out of the 148 registered representatives present at the meeting, and 132 representatives present at the meeting (hereinafter “instant amendment of the regulations,” and thereby, “the amended regulations” was referred to as “the amended regulations”). Article 6(2) of the amended regulations through the amendment of the instant regulations, “The members of the modern Central Heavy Industries Branch and the intra-company subcontractor Branch shall be qualified for membership in accordance with the operation regulations of the Special Committee for the Implementation of the Organization of Workers, and the members of the branch office and the intra-company branch association shall be included in the amendment of the regulations.”

D. On April 18, 2018, a temporary representative meeting was held to decide on the amendment of Article 5(1) through (4) and (6) of the Regulations, but the amendment was rejected. On July 2018, the two agenda items were resolved with the consent of 69 members among 133 incumbent representatives present, 129 members present, 129 members present, and 129 members present, with the consent of 69 members present.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) provides for matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the bylaws as a resolution by a general meeting, the amendment of the instant regulations by means of a resolution of a temporary conference of delegates on September 21, 2017 is in violation of the said Trade Union Act, which is a mandatory law, and the amendment of the instant regulations itself is null and void.

B. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant enacted the Operational Rules for the Enforcement of the Special Committee on the Organization of Unborn Workers (hereinafter “instant Operation Rules”). The Operation Rules are based on Article 5 of the previous Rules, and Article 5 of the said Rules cannot serve as the basis for the Operation Rules, and even if the instant Operation Rules were based on Article 6(2) of the amended Rules introduced through the amendment of the instant Rules, the instant Operation Rules are null and void as long as the amendment of the instant Rules is null and void as seen in the foregoing paragraph (a).

C. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Revised Heavy Industrial Branch-General Job Subdivision’s consolidated Enforcement Rule, which is the Defendant’s current agreement, is also based on Article 6(2) of the Revised Heavy Industrial Branch-General Job Subdivision’s Uniforms Association’s Regulations, so long as the amendment of the instant regulations is null and void, the above Enforcement Rule also becomes null and void, and the resolution on the agenda mentioned in

3. Determination

A. As to the allegation that the amendment to the instant statute is null and void

1) Article 16(1) of the Trade Union Act provides, “The matters falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting” in subparagraph 1 and subparagraph 2 of the same Article provides, “matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the regulations,” and “matters concerning the election and dismissal of officers” in Article 16(2) of the same Act provides, “The general meeting shall pass a resolution with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent union members and with the consent of a majority of the union members present: Provided, That the matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the regulations, the dismissal of officers, a merger, a division, a dissolution, and a structural change shall require the attendance of a majority of the incumbent union members and the consent of at least two thirds of the union members present.” Article 17(1) of the same Act provides, “if a trade union has a board of representatives, the provisions concerning the general meeting shall apply mutatis mutandis to the board of representatives,” and accordingly, Article 17(4) of the same Act provides, “where a trade union has a general meeting in lieu of the general meeting.”

In full view of the following facts: ① Article 15(2) of the Revised Code provides that “A council may be established in lieu of a general meeting, and the rules relating to a general meeting shall apply mutatis mutandis to a resolution for dissolution of a branch office, except in the case of a resolution for dissolution of a branch office,” and Article 18 of the Revised Code provides that “matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the regulations,” “matters concerning the change in the form of organization,” and “matters concerning the change in the form of organization,” respectively, the board of representatives may also pass a resolution on all the matters subject to the resolution of the general meeting, including “matters concerning the enactment and amendment of the regulations,” and Article 15(2) of the Revised Code. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23089, Sep. 21, 2017>

Further, in the case of the Supreme Court Decision 97Da41349 delivered on January 14, 200, which the plaintiff cited, the purport of the above recognition is to directly elect representatives by the direct, secret, and anonymous voting of union members in order to realize democracy within the union, and it does not purport to place separate restrictions on the function of the council elected through the above process, the defendant has appointed a board of representatives replacing the general meeting with the general meeting in accordance with the Trade Union Act, and pursuant to Article 17(4) of the Trade Union Act, since the provisions concerning the general meeting apply mutatis mutandis to the board of representatives, the amendment of the rules, which is one of the functions of the general meeting, can be made at the board of representatives, as a matter of course, shall be deemed to have been made at the board of representatives. In addition, since the rules have explicitly provided for the amendment of the rules before the amendment, it is reasonable to deem that both the defendant's general meeting and the board of representatives can be made.

2) Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise.

B. The part on the invalidity of the instant operational rules

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is not sufficient to recognize that there was a substantive and procedural illegality in the process of enacting the instant operational rules, and as seen earlier, the amendment of the instant rules cannot be deemed null and void. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the amendment of the instant rules is null and void is without merit.

C. Attached 2. The part on the assertion of invalidity of the resolution

The plaintiff's assertion on this part, which is premised on the invalidity of the amendment of the statute of this case, is without merit.

D. Other arguments

Although the Plaintiff’s new assertion that the amendment of the instant statute is null and void due to lack of unity in the agenda through the reference document for April 10, 2019 after the closing of argument, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion and may not find any illegality in the process of the resolution of the temporary conference of delegates, in addition to the aforementioned evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] The defendant's agenda for temporary delegates on September 21, 2017: omitted

[Attachment 2] The defendant's agenda for temporary delegates on July 9, 2018: omitted

Judges Kim Yong-Du (Presiding Judge)