2. Of the costs of the lawsuit, the Intervenor shall bear the costs of the intervention, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 6-14 through 23, Gap evidence 10, and 11-2.

A. Plaintiff 1 operates an intra-company subcontractor (mutually: ○○ enterprise; hereinafter “○○ enterprise”) that performs the assembly of parts for the start of construction works in the industrial complex of modern automobiles after entering into a contract with Hyundai Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mo-si”) with 119 full-time workers at Asan-si (Seoul-si). Plaintiff 2 entered into a contract with 90 full-time workers at Asan-si (Seoul-si 2 omitted) and operates an intra-company subcontractor (hereinafter “△△ enterprise”) that performs the assembly of parts for the start of construction works in the industrial complex of modern automobiles at six-half and eight teams a day, and Plaintiff 2 is an intra-company subcontractor (hereinafter “Ban-si-si”) that is established within the branch office or sub-branch of the Defendant’s Intervenor 2 as one of its constituent members; and Plaintiff 2 is an intra-company subcontractor’s organization or sub-branch of the Plaintiff’s affiliated organization and sub-branch 20.

B. From November 19, 2004 to December 12, 2004, the Intervenor Union filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the Chungcheongnam-nam Regional Labor Relations Commission on January 13, 2005, asserting that the Plaintiffs had committed unfair labor practices that infringe upon the Intervenor Union’s collective action rights by newly employing workers to perform the work interrupted by industrial action during the period of the industrial action at the time of the in-house subcontractor subcontractor conference. The said Regional Labor Relations Commission recognized the said new employment as unfair labor practices conducted under the intent to control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union during the period of the industrial action at the time of the in-house subcontractor conference, and ordered the Plaintiffs to remedy the Plaintiffs that “no new worker should be employed to perform the work interrupted by industrial action with the intent to control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union during the industrial action period at the time of the in-house subcontractor union, and to send a document promising to prevent the recurrence of such actions to the trade union.”

C. On April 15, 2005, the Plaintiffs appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission as 2005No74 on April 15, 2005, and the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for reexamination on October 26, 2005.

2. Whether the decision on retrial is lawful.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) Illegal for industrial action

In order for industrial action to have legitimacy, it is aimed at maintaining and improving working conditions in relation to collective bargaining, and its purpose should be justified. As such, ① substantial collective bargaining should have been conducted, ② requirements to be achieved by industrial action should be able to constitute collective bargaining. The industrial action by the participant union fails to meet the above requirements, ② in that the industrial action by the participant union fails to meet the following requirements:

(A) Until voting for and against an intervenor’s industrial action between the plaintiffs and the intervenor’s union, collective bargaining was conducted to conclude a collective agreement in 2004 and the collective bargaining was conducted. In light of the following circumstances, collective bargaining to maintain and improve the actual working conditions was not conducted.

1) The Plaintiffs received a request for negotiation from the intra-company subcontractor’s association composed of the workers dismissed from the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs requested the Intervenor’s association to identify the union members among the employees belonging to the Plaintiff, but failed to be notified of the list of union members. The negotiations with the dismissed workers and their employees made it difficult for the Plaintiffs to conduct collective bargaining that requires mutual trust.

2) The intra-company subcontractor continuously demanded the reinstatement of dismissed persons within the collective agreement prior to the pro-con voting on industrial action, and only dealt with the issue of reinstatement of dismissed persons, and did not comply with the Plaintiffs’ request for negotiation after the conclusion of the Hyundai Motor Union.

(B) During the period of entering an industrial action, the intra-company subcontractor was unable to claim legitimate collective bargaining issues, including illegal temporary agency workers, direct employment of intra-company employees, non-regular out-of-standing violence, and right-guaranteed legislative disputes, as follows, including the following: (a) reinstatement of dismissed workers; (b) reduction of the number of surplus personnel of insurance companies in △△ companies; and (c) a complaint of disciplinary action.

1) An industrial action conducted after November 19, 2004 by a △△ enterprise is not aimed at improving the working conditions by asserting and inciting that the members of the intra-company subcontractor’s association are unfair labor practices aimed at obstructing the meeting of the manager of the △△ enterprise, and thus, it does not aim at improving the working conditions.

2) An industrial action conducted after January 3, 2005 by a cooperative company to which a member of the intra-company subcontractor association belongs (hereinafter “cooperative company”) shall not be a legitimate industrial action, based on the fact that the operation of extra manpower was commenced on the ground of the reduction of extra manpower of the insurance company in Seocho-gu, thereby falling under the management right of the insurance company in Seocho-gu.

3) Furthermore, the intra-company subcontractor decided to refuse to conduct the remaining business due to the problem of the △△ enterprise on November 30, 2004. Since January 30, 2005, the head of the intra-company subcontractor decided to refuse to conduct the remaining business by its members, such as the ○ enterprise and △△ enterprise, etc., as the problem of the △△ enterprise. This is a kind of the same kind of business, which is prohibited by the current law, in order to solve the internal issues of the △△ enterprise and the △ enterprise, and thus, is not justifiable.

(2) Violation of the procedure for industrial action

An industrial action cannot be deemed to be procedurally justifiable because the supporting ballot for the industrial action does not comply with the following provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes:

(A) The subcontractors have carried out individual negotiations with the Intervenor respectively, and therefore, the intra-company subcontractor has carried out the supporting voting for the industrial action for each individual company, but the intra-company subcontractor has carried out the supporting voting for the industrial action for all union members. As such, the above supporting voting for the industrial action is unlawful.

(B) Although the intra-company subcontractor agreed by 63 of 102 union members who are registered in the pro-con voting for industrial action, according to the rules of the intra-company subcontractor association, the dismissed worker is not qualified as union members, and the above voting by 15 union members who are dismissed without a voting qualification violates the provisions of the law that the industrial action should be decided with the consent of a majority of union members.

(3) Whether an industrial action constitutes a substitute worker and an unfair labor practice during the industrial action period

(A) The ○○ Company retired from the office of three workers, four employees on the business trip, and three employees on the part of the business trip are newly required, and there was a lack of human resources for 10 workers. △△ Company retired from the office of six employees, and 5 employees applied for a long-term leave of absence of human resources, and 11 employees were additionally awarded a contract by entering into an additional contract with Hyundai Motor and each emergency business contract. The Plaintiffs’ new employment was inevitable due to the occurrence of additional contract and vacancy, and since it was not included in the duties of the existing members, it does not conflict with the provision on the prohibition of alternative work as it is not related to the prohibition or interference of industrial actions.

(B) Furthermore, since the prohibition of alternative labor and the provision of unfair labor practices are different in the legislative intent, and the penal provisions for such violations are respectively stipulated, it cannot be deemed unfair labor practices by violating the prohibition of alternative labor. As long as the prohibition of alternative labor is premised on a legitimate industrial action, even if new employment constitutes a substitute labor, it may not be deemed unfair labor practices if an industrial action is unlawful.

(b) Relevant statutes and regulations;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence as mentioned above, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-1 through 13, Eul evidence 7-1 through 18, Gap evidence 9-1 through 6, Gap evidence 12-1 through 8, Gap evidence 14, 15-1, 15-2, Gap evidence 17-1 through 13, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 4-2, Eul evidence 5 through 8, and the testimony of non-party 10 and 11.

(1) The process of collective bargaining between the intervenor union and the in-house subcontractor

(A) The Intervenor Union delegated the authority to conduct collective bargaining on May 20, 2004 to the president of the intra-company subcontractor branch for efficient negotiations with the subcontractor in 2004. On May 11, 2004, the Intervenor Union sent “the demand for wages and collective agreements in 2004” to the subcontractor. On the draft of the collective agreement request, there was a provision on the demand for the reinstatement of dismissed workers, stating that “the subcontractor will return to the original company upon the conclusion of this agreement with respect to the dismissal workers related to union activities.”

(B) On May 13, 2004, the Intervenor Union requested a subcontractor to “ordinary and primary negotiations.” However, the employer of these collaborative companies notified that the negotiation place should be held in the office outside the ASEAN of the ASEAN of the Hyundai Automobile Trade Union (hereinafter “the ASEAN”) and the location of negotiations would not be changed. The Intervenor Union requested the subcontractor to “ordinary and secondary negotiations” on May 18, 2004, but the subcontractor’s employer failed to attend the collective bargaining agreement after notifying the subcontractor of the demand to delete the provision of dismissal from the “Demand for Wages and Collective Agreement 2004”.

(다) 참가인 조합은 2004. 5. 21. 협력업체들에 교섭장소를 아산지부 대회의실 또는 협력업체의 주된 부서 사무실로 정하여 ‘3차 교섭’을 요청하였는데, 교섭장소를 아산지부 대회의실로 통보받은 ○○기업 등 4개 협력업체는 사용자 측에서 참석을 하지 아니하였고, 교섭장소를 협력업체의 주된 부서 사무실로 통보받은 △△기업 등 4개 협력업체 중 ■■기업만 사용자가 교섭을 인정하여 해고자 복직 문제를 ‘2004년 임금 및 단체협약 요구안’에서 삭제하고 교섭일자를 협의하여 정할 것을 요구하였고, 나머지 3개 업체는 사용자 측이 교섭을 거부하거나 대표자가 참석하지 아니하여 교섭이 결렬되었다.

(D) On May 27, 2004, the fourth regular bargaining was held. Four collaborative companies, such as △△ companies, etc., in which the negotiation place was notified as the room of the Afinite Games, did not appear on the part of the employer. Among four collaborative companies, such as ○○ companies, etc., in which the negotiation place was notified as the main department office of the collaborative company, the negotiation between ○○ companies and ○○ companies was recognized, and the remaining two collaborative companies were in place of negotiations. The ○○ Company deleted the issue of reinstatement of dismissal from the “Demand for Wages and Collective Agreement 2004” and demanded that the negotiation place should proceed in the office outside the Hyundai Motor.

(E) On May 28, 2004, four collaborative companies, including ○○ Company, attended the five primary negotiations held in the office outside the Hyundai Motor Vehicle, and thereafter, on June 1, 2004, the negotiation was concluded by not attending the negotiations held individually for eight collaborative companies, such as △△ Company, or by refusing to negotiate, etc., at the main office of the Company and the partner company in the Asia-si District Games and the main office of the partner company. At the same time, the △ Company and △△ Company sent notice to the Intervenor Association that it is impossible to participate in the negotiations unless the two matters are accepted, by urging the Intervenor Association to delete the provision of the reinstatement of dismissal and to express a clear opinion regarding the acceptance of individual negotiations.

(F) After that, in the negotiations conducted between the Intervenor and the Intervenor Cooperation Company on June 2, 2004, the same month, the 4th of the same month, the 10th of the same month, the 11th of the same month, and the 11th of the same month, etc., the employer demanded the Intervenor to delete the problem of reinstatement from the “2004 wage and collective agreement demand” and to follow individual bargaining methods in the “2004 wage and collective agreement demand.” The Intervenor’s request for reinstatement can be dealt with separately from the collective agreement demand if the negotiation is conducted, and if the substantial negotiation is secured by establishing the basic method of conscientious bargaining in the future, the issue of reinstatement may be dealt with prior to the conclusion of the request for dismissal from the Intervenor Cooperative. However, the employer failed to comply with the request for the removal of the above provision from the Intervenor Cooperative until the negotiation is confirmed.

(G) On June 17, 2004, the Intervenor Union promoted the first collective bargaining with the subcontractor, but it revealed that the employer's refusal of collective bargaining was in fact an individual bargaining from May 21, 2005, and then the negotiation method is followed by individual bargaining, but it is not possible to accept the removal of the requirement of reinstatement, and then the Intervenor Union declared that the Intervenor Union did not refuse or participate in the collective bargaining even though it attempted individual bargaining with the subcontractor on June 22, 2004, but did not participate in the collective bargaining. The Intervenor Union declared that the collective bargaining related to the wages and the collective agreement in 204.

(2) Application for the conciliation of labor disputes of the intervenor union and the process of subsequent negotiations

(A) On June 23, 2004, the Intervenor Union filed an application for mediation of labor disputes on the ground that the employer refused or avoided negotiations without justifiable grounds and did not reach an agreement, even though the negotiation was conducted with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission as described in the said paragraph (1).

(B) On July 2, 2004, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered an administrative guidance to the Intervenor Union stating that “If an employer has reached an agreement on the verification of the eligibility of the parties, such as the submission of a membership roll, on the part of the trade union, the employer will engage in negotiations in good faith. As such, the labor-management parties shall confirm the existence of the union members and actively endeavor to ensure that normal negotiations may be conducted by sufficiently consulting on the date, time, method, venue, etc. of negotiations, and recommend that the employer apply for mediation of labor disputes at the time of absence of disagreements with the assertion on the terms and conditions of employment regarding the conclusion of wages and collective agreements except for those matters not subject to negotiations, such as reinstatement of dismissed persons who are difficult to be deemed

(C) On July 5, 2004, the Intervenor Union filed an application for labor dispute conciliation again with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that “it was erroneous for the Intervenor Association to take administrative guidance by emphasizing the verification issues of the parties who had been responsible for the failure to negotiate and have not been surfaceed during the negotiations.”

(D) On July 14, 2004, the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision on the termination of mediation without submitting a mediation proposal on the ground that the situation where the employer did not present a negotiation proposal even though it continued to make an effort for agreement between the parties due to the disagreement in the claim regarding the determination of working conditions, such as wages and working hours, even though it has made an endeavor to make an agreement by means of voluntary bargaining, and that the presentation of a mediation proposal at the present time would rather obstruct autonomous bargaining between the labor and management.

(E) After that, even though the union and the Intervenor’s partner companies engaged in negotiations several times until August 12, 2004, they did not reach an agreement on the issues such as the deletion and negotiation place of the request to be reinstated, the power of representation, etc., and thus, did not enter into a wage and a collective agreement.

(F) Meanwhile, upon the conclusion of the wage agreement in 2004 between the Hyundai Motor and its trade union on July 6, 2004, the Plaintiffs unilaterally increased and paid the wages of ○○ Enterprise and △△ Enterprise Workers in 2004, corresponding to the said wage agreement.

(3) A vote for and a report on industrial action

(A) On September 9, 2004 and the 10th of the same month, the Intervenor Union held pro-con voting for industrial action against intra-company subcontractors. Of the 102 members, 63 of the total number of the 102 members belonging to eight collaborative companies attended voting and 53 of the 51.9% of the 51st mutual vote.

(B) Meanwhile, from June 2003 to July 2003 of the same year, 26 of the members of the intra-company subcontractor were dismissed on the ground of work attitude, tort, etc. arising from the process of concluding the collective agreement in 2003 from the subcontractor. The above dismissed persons filed an application for unfair dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission via the Chungcheongnamnam Regional Labor Relations Commission, but all dismissed until July 2004, and part of the dismissed persons participated in the above labor dispute resolution.

(C) On November 19, 2004, the Intervenor Union submitted a report on industrial action to the Chungcheongnam-gu Regional Labor Relations Commission. The report is written as follows: “The Intervenor Union is a party to the labor union; the Intervenor Union is a partner; the time and time of the industrial action is from November 19, 2004 to November 19, 2004 to the conclusion of wages and collective agreements; the place of industrial action is discharged from the workplace and the Chungcheongnam-gu area; the place of industrial action is a reporter’s dog, solar, full-time strike, profac, meeting, booming, etc.”

(4) Industrial actions conducted by ○ Company and △△ Company

(A) If a modern automobile trade union (other than the Intervenor union) is convened, the shuttle bus operated in modern automobiles starts after the assembly, and the partner company's employees retired from the assembly. However, there was a defect that Nonparty 12 was present at a modern automobile trade union meeting on November 16, 2004 unless there was a turn off by November 16, 2004, the non-party 13, the non-party 12, "the non-party 13 was present at the meeting of the Hyundai Automobile trade Union" while the non-party 9, who is the member of the intra-company subcontractor association, did not report this situation to Nonparty 13 to interfere with the non-party 12's meeting, and the non-party 13's above act was to interfere with the non-party 12's participation in the meeting, and did not report this fact to the Hyundai Automobile trade Union's representative and the non-party 12's personal nature and the non-party 12's promise to prevent the recurrence.

(B) On November 19, 2004, members of △△ Company entered into a strike, such as refusal of remaining business, etc. on several occasions (including November 22, 2004; November 23, 2004; November 29, 2004; etc.). Members of ○ Company conducted industrial actions, such as refusal of remaining business, in accordance with the guidelines for circular wave by company of the intra-company subcontractor conference, to assist the strike of members of △ Company on November 30, 2004.

(C) On December 3, 2004, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff 2 and the intra-company subcontractor on the punishment of the responsible person, the intention of the representative, and the promise to prevent recurrence.

(D) On the other hand, as a company established on May 1, 2003, as it is established on May 1, 2003, the early operation of human resources and operation activities of its employees are not stable, it has been determined and implemented temporarily until the company gets into operation by increasing the number of 1 minute 5 shift workers to 6 people due to frequent occupational failure and frequent occurrence of vacancy. Since one year thereafter, human resources operation has been stable, making it possible to operate under 1 minute 5. Since 1 trillion won since August 25, 2004, Nonparty 14, a member of the intra-company subcontractor, demanded an increase of number of people as at the time of temporary operation on September 23, 2004, Nonparty 15, the representative of the insurance company, compared the purpose of the operation by Nonparty 15 to the temporary operation and the situation of Nonparty 16, the situation of the complaint and the number of people of the Hyundai company, and explained by Nonparty 16.

(E) However, when the intra-company subcontractor raises an issue of the number of surplus employees who had been in operation in the past on November 23, 2004, it issued guidelines for the strike against the insurance company on December 23, 2004; on December 24, 2004; when the problem of the number of surplus employees of the insurance company is not resolved, the intra-company subcontractor posted a written notice on December 25, 2004 that all members of the insurance company's association refuse to engage in special circumstances; and thereafter, the company ordered the cooperation company to take industrial actions, such as refusing to engage in night-time operations, on the ground of the number of surplus employees of the insurance company, etc.

(F) Accordingly, from December 23, 2004, members of △△ Company engaged in industrial actions, such as refusing to engage in remaining business as a matter of surplus number of workers. From January 3, 2005, members of △△ Company and ○○ Company engaged in industrial actions, such as refusing to engage in remaining business as a matter of the number of surplus members of △△ Company in accordance with the guidelines for industrial actions of △△ branch, and some of the members of △△ Group wear a string who are members of △ branch.

(5) Employment of workers of ○ enterprises and △ enterprises

Plaintiff 1 was newly employed between December 29, 2004 and January 11, 2005, on the ground of the replacement of Nonparty 1’s temporary retirement from office, retired from office, and travelr’s duty, and between January 29, 2004, and between January 11, 2005, Plaintiff 2 newly employed Nonparty 37, including Nonparty 18, on the ground of the implementation of emergency work contracts and the replacement of duties, etc. between November 24, 2004 and January 17, 2005.

D. Determination

(1) As to the legitimacy of the industrial action procedure

(A) Whether the dismissed has the right to vote

1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “worker means a person who lives on wages, salary, or any other income equivalent thereto regardless of the type of occupation,” and Article 2 subparag. 4 provides that “trade union means an organization or associated organization organized independently and independently by the worker as the principal agent for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions and enhancing the economic and social status of the worker: Provided, That it shall not be deemed a trade union in any of the following cases, and Article 2 subparag. 1 provides that “Where a person who is not a worker has been dismissed has permitted entry into an employment union: Provided, That where the dismissed person has applied for remedy of unfair labor practices to the Labor Relations Commission, it shall not be construed as a person who is not a worker until the Review Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is rendered, and the proviso of the above subparagraph 4 provides that only the above provision is applied to the case where the worker is denied by dismissal from the employer, and that it does not include not only Article 20 subparag. 21 but also Article 28 subparag. 2 of the Act.

2) Meanwhile, Article 41(3) and (4) of the rules of the Intervenor Union provide that “A branch operation rules may be separately enacted and implemented for the autonomous and reasonable operation of the branch office based on the rules of the branch office established by the Central Committee within the scope of the bylaws of the Association. Any part contrary to the rules and regulations shall be null and void, and any part contrary to the intent of the rules and regulations of the branch office shall be governed by the rules and regulations.” Article 44(3) and (5) of the rules of the Intervenor Union provides that “A branch office operation rules may be separately established and implemented for the autonomous and reasonable operation of the branch office within the scope of the rules and regulations of the association, the rules and regulations of the branch office, the rules and regulations of the branch office, and the regulations on the operation of the branch office shall be null and void.”

3) Therefore, as seen earlier, inasmuch as the intra-company subcontractor’s bylaws stipulate that, as long as the intra-company subcontractor’s bylaws stipulate that employees are not members of each company established with only the organization of employees belonging to individual collaborative companies, the dismissed shall be deemed not to be members of the company, the rules of the sub-committee stipulate that such dismissed employees shall be disqualified. As such, the rules of the sub-committee are contrary to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the rules of the Intervenor’s Union, which are null and void pursuant to Article 44(5) of the rules, the dismissed employees shall be deemed to be members of the intra-company subcontractor’s association

(B) The legality of the vote to support an industrial action on the basis of the unit of a branch

Article 41(1) of the Act provides that "any industrial action by a trade union shall not be conducted unless it is decided with the consent of a majority of the union members by a direct, secret, and unsigned vote of the union members." Since the above provision is established to promote the autonomous and democratic operation of the trade union and to ensure more careful and more careful decision-making of the union's opinion on the commencement of the industrial action so that workers participating in the industrial action do not suffer any disadvantage in relation to the legitimacy of the industrial action after the fact, the industrial action in violation of the above procedure becomes justifiable unless objective circumstances are acknowledged that it cannot follow the procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001, etc.).

On the other hand, collective bargaining in the industrial trade union system can be conducted by means of collective bargaining, large-scale bargaining (a form in which a trade union conducts collective bargaining with an individual employer) and branch bargaining, etc. However, in the event that an industrial trade union conducts collective bargaining with the individual employer or conducts collective bargaining at the same time at the same place as a large number of employers, the trade union conducts collective bargaining in order to conclude collective agreements to be applied to an individual user-unit workplace, and in fact, a trade union conducts collective bargaining in order to make a collective agreement to be applied to an individual user-unit workplace. As such, an industrial action is a principal agent of the union members belonging to the relevant workplace, and a pro-con voting pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Act should be conducted only for each individual company members (in the event that such collective bargaining does not take place, even though a majority of the union members belonging to the relevant workplace oppose an industrial action, it may result

However, as seen earlier, the Intervenor Union was conducting individual negotiations from the third negotiation to the partner company's request on May 21, 2004 at the time of the first collective bargaining, and thus, it was conducted only by the partner company belonging to the pertinent partner company. However, the agreement voting on the agreement of the industrial action of November 19, 2004 is invalid since the agreement voting on the agreement of the industrial action of November 19, 2004 is limited to all the partner companies belonging to the intra-company subcontractor company.

(C) Sub-determination

As above, an industrial action based on the invalid concurrent voting for an industrial action is in violation of the procedure under Article 41(1) of the Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is an objective reason that it cannot follow the procedure. Thus, a series of industrial actions conducted by ○ enterprise and △ enterprise are justifiable because all of the industrial actions conducted by ○ enterprise and △ enterprise have not gone through such a procedure.

(2) Whether the purpose of industrial action is justifiable

(A) Industrial actions conducted by △△ Enterprises from November 19, 2004 to December 3 of the same year.

In a case where there are several purposes pursuing one industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the dispute should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action, and in a case where it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the industrial action had not been conducted for the reason of the illegal demand, the entire industrial action shall not have legitimacy (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5204 delivered on January 21, 192, etc.).

However, in the instant case, the Intervenor’s association asserts that the act of one of the persons in charge of managing △△ enterprises intends to take advantage of the worker’s retirement in the process of conducting collective bargaining with △△ enterprises was practically conducted with the intent to interfere with the workers’ attendance at the assembly, and that there was a conflict between Plaintiff 2’s refusal of such demand and the Intervenor’s union’s entry into the said industrial action. However, as seen above, the Intervenor’s association continued to demand for the maintenance and improvement of working conditions by presenting “the demand for wage and collective agreement of 204” to the Intervenors and other cooperative companies including △△△△ enterprises to maintain and improve working conditions, and even if the Intervenor’s request for the adjustment of the labor dispute, the purpose of which is to ensure that the Intervenor’s request for the improvement of working conditions and the employer’s participation in the industrial action is not sufficient to recognize that there was an unreasonable demand from the Intervenor’s participation in the industrial action and the employer’s participation in the industrial action as the sole purpose of the collective agreement.

Therefore, the purpose of industrial action in △ enterprise during the above period is to be justified.

(B) Industrial actions conducted by △△ Enterprises and industrial actions conducted by ○ Enterprises after January 3, 2005.

In light of the fact that an industrial trade union is undergoing a large-scale negotiation with the individual company, and where an industrial action is conducted by the individual employer’s workplace due to the conclusion of that negotiation, the large-scale negotiation does not differ from the corporate-level negotiation structure, even if the industrial trade union is the union members belonging to other employers’ workplace, branch, or sub-branch belonging to the same industrial trade union, industrial action with the intent to exercise influence over the industrial action of another company is not allowed. Thus, the industrial action cannot be conducted except where the result of the large-scale negotiation of the industrial company is directly related to the industrial action.

However, as seen earlier, eight collaborative companies affiliated with the intra-company subcontractor have been engaged in the negotiations, and the industrial action on November 30, 2004, which was conducted by the ○○ enterprise, was conducted in order to exercise influence over the industrial action of the △ enterprise or to support the industrial action. The industrial action after January 3, 2005, which was conducted by the △△ enterprise and the ○○ enterprise, was conducted to exercise influence over the industrial action of the △ enterprise or to support the industrial action. Since there is no evidence to find that the ○ enterprise directly related to the negotiation result of the △△ enterprise or the result of the △△ enterprise, each of the industrial action at the ○○ enterprise and the △△△ enterprise, which was conducted by the △△ enterprise, was conducted in order to exercise its influence over the industrial action of other enterprises, it cannot be said that its purpose is justifiable.

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, an industrial action conducted by ○○ enterprise and △△ enterprise cannot be deemed justifiable except the industrial action conducted by △△ enterprise from November 19, 2004 to December 13, 2004.

(3) Whether new employment constitutes unfair labor practice

Article 43(1) of the Act provides that an industrial action shall be conducted on the premise that the industrial action is legitimate. As seen earlier, insofar as an industrial action conducted by ○○ Company and △△ Company does not have legitimacy in violation of the law in the procedure or purpose of the industrial action, the Plaintiffs’ new employment of workers is not likely to constitute unfair labor practices without any need to further examine whether or not the Plaintiffs’ new employment of workers during the period of the industrial action violates the prohibition of alternative labor, or whether or not the violation of the prohibition of alternative labor constitutes unfair labor practices.

(4) Ultimately, the decision of this case, which entered into a different conclusion, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)