(b) The case holding that it constitutes "an act of leading to the labor dispute corresponding to the labor dispute, which is the ground for disciplinary dismissal under the rules of employment of the defense industry company"

B. The case holding that it constitutes "an act of leading workers to a labor dispute corresponding to the "labor dispute" prescribed by the rules of employment that an employee of a defense industry company allowed workers to take out relief from 1,000 workers gathered in a restaurant to demand wage increases, etc. by reading out printed materials and instigate demonstration, etc. by taking advantage of the occupation time constitutes "an act of leading workers to a labor dispute" under the rules of employment.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant company's rules of employment were stated as ① compensation for the same kind of disciplinary action against the defendant company's 6th anniversary of the above disciplinary action. ② The defendant company's dismissal of the defendant company's 6th anniversary of the above disciplinary action, ② The defendant company's dismissal of the defendant company's 6th anniversary of the above disciplinary action, ② The defendant company's dismissal of non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's labor union.

To the extent that the rules of employment provide for the grounds for disciplinary action and the types of disciplinary action against them, the rules in itself shall comply with the rules unless there are special circumstances, such as the violation of the good faith principle or abuse of rights. If the illegality of the plaintiffs' above recognition constitutes grounds for dismissal under Article 65 subparagraph 28 of the rules of employment of defendant company, unless there are any circumstances that it is unlawful to apply the above rules of employment as it is, a disciplinary action against dismissal shall be deemed legitimate.

However, labor dispute refers to the state of dispute arising from disagreements between the parties to labor relations with respect to working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment. As recognized by the court below, the plaintiffs' act such as the above recognition, as a means to correct the dissatisfactions to wage negotiations in 1987, does not constitute an act that interferes with the normal operation of the defendant company, which is a defense industry company, and operates labor-management rules equivalent to labor disputes, and therefore, the court below's decision that the dismissal of the defendant company's office in Article 65, Paragraph 28 of the Rules of Employment does not constitute a ground for dismissal of the defendant company, regardless of its reasonable reasons, has been erroneous or erroneous in interpreting the rules of employment of the defendant company.

Therefore, without determining other grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)