The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the company house management regulations of the plaintiff company, the court below recognizes the fact that the company house management regulations of the plaintiff company provide that the plaintiff company's company house management shall leave the company house within one month if a member is dismissed. Accordingly, according to the company house management regulations (Evidence A4) that the defendant recognized the authenticity at the date of the first pleading of the court below, the above fact-finding of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

(2) On the second ground for appeal

The proviso of Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act stating that in a case where an employee contests the validity of dismissal and the dismissal is null and void as a matter of course, the termination of the employment contract by the employer does not have any absolute effect from the beginning, and therefore an employee maintains his status as a matter of course, while in a case where the dismissal is justified, the status of the employee shall be terminated as a matter of course by the dismissal even if the employee contests the validity of the dismissal. The proviso of Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union Act provides that the employee who contests the validity of the dismissal shall not be construed as a non-worker, and it shall not be construed as a member of the trade union as a provision for protecting the establishment and continuation of the trade union and preventing the activities of the trade union from being obstructed by the employer’s unfair exercise of personnel rights, and it is not a provision for labor relations with the employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do326, Nov. 8, 191).

In light of the records, the defendant's act of distributing a boiler to urge the dismissal of the plaintiff company's product by participating in the non-sale campaign for the plaintiff company's product against the plaintiff company's trade union and distributing it on February 22, 191 is recognized. According to this, the dismissal of the plaintiff company is just and it does not seem to have any ground for nullification, and the defendant's allegation of the validity of dismissal does not affect the validity of termination of the plaintiff company's individual labor contract with the plaintiff company, not the defendant's trade union member. Thus, the decision of the court below that the defendant's dismissal does not merely dispute the validity of dismissal does not affect the validity of termination of the plaintiff company's individual labor contract. Thus, it is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the status of the plaintiff

(3) 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 Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)