2.B

3.C

4.D

5.E

6.F

7.G

8.H

9. I

10. J

11. K;

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

14.N

15. 0

16.P

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney X, Y, Z

1. For an industrial action of workers to be recognized as a justifiable act, the subject must be able to be the subject of the collective bargaining, and the purpose thereof must be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions, and an employer shall commence collective bargaining with respect to a specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of workers, and barring any special circumstance, the employer shall undergo procedures prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a decision on the consent of members, etc., and the means and methods thereof shall not be in harmony with the employer’s property rights, etc., but shall not constitute the exercise of violence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15499, May 23, 2013).

In addition, since workers have, in principle, the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, the strike, which is a collective refusal to provide labor as an industrial action, does not always constitute the crime of interference with business. It is reasonable to deem the crime of interference with business to be established only in cases where it can be evaluated that the free will to continue the employer's business may cause serious confusion and substantial damage to the employer's business operation because the industrial action was conducted at a time unforeseeable by the employer in light of the circumstances and circumstances before and after, and after, the industrial action, etc., may cause serious confusion and enormous damage to the employer (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do482, Mar. 17, 201)

2. First, we examine Defendant A and C as to obstruction of business on June 24, 2009.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant A and the director general of the organization bureau of the Korean Railroad Workers' Union conspired with other union members and interfere with the Korea Railroad Corporation's normal transportation of passengers and freight by force by interfering with the operation of the train in a way of the so-called safety strike that excessively strictly complies with the relevant business regulations from 30 to 07:00 in accordance with the guidelines for the strike of the Korean Railroad Workers' Union on June 24, 2009.

However, even according to the facts charged, the damage caused by the above industrial action was only caused by the delay of up to 11 minutes to 56 minutes of train 7 minutes during the remaining 3 hours, and thus, it can be deemed as a very weak level when compared to the size of the business of the Korea Railroad Corporation or the transport volume and sales through railroads, etc., and the above damage can also be one of the causes of serious confusion or enormous damage, etc., it is difficult to deem that the free will to continue the business of the Korea Railroad Corporation, which is an employer, can be evaluated to the extent that the free will to continue the business may be voltage and confused, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the business size of the Korea Railroad Corporation, or the transport volume and sales through railroads, etc.

Therefore, although there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s conclusion that acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the Defendants’ act does not constitute force on the crime of interference with business is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on false facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or on force in the crime of interference with business, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

3. Next, we examine the obstruction of business of Defendant A, C, D, and E on September 8, 2009 and the obstruction of business of Defendant A, B, C, F, G, H, I, J, and K on September 16, 2009.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Korea Railroad Corporation on the ground that the industrial action described in this part of the facts charged was conducted in order to urge collective bargaining without justifiable grounds, and that the purpose of which was to be justified and not guilty on the ground that it was not unlawful in the course of the procedure.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just in its conclusion, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to erroneous facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to force

4. Furthermore, Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, H, K, N, K, P, Q, Q, S, T, U, andy: (a) the obstruction of business from November 5, 2009 to November 7, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “colc wave business”) and Defendant A, B, C, D, F, H, H, H, K, K, L, M, M, P, Q, Q, Q, S, T, U, and V from November 26, 2009 to December 3, 209 (hereinafter referred to as the “total interference of business”).

A. Whether to implement corporate restructuring, such as layoff or corporate merger, belongs to the high level management decision of the management body, and therefore, in principle, it cannot be the object of collective bargaining. Thus, if a trade union becomes an industrial action to substantially oppose the implementation of the industrial action, barring special circumstances, such as the urgent managerial necessity or the implementation of the industrial action without any justifiable reason, such industrial action cannot be deemed justifiable even if it can be changed the status or working conditions of workers due to the implementation of the industrial action. In addition, if there are various purposes pursuing the industrial action and part of the industrial action is not justifiable, the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action shall be determined based on the main or genuine purpose, and if it is deemed that the industrial action would not have been conducted if it would not have been conducted after the lapse of the improper requirements, the entire industrial action shall not be justified (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1030, Jan. 27, 2011, etc.).

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following.

1) On December 2008, the government announced the fourth public agency advance plan to the Korea Railroad Corporation on the reduction of the prescribed number of 5,115 persons. Accordingly, the Korea Railroad Corporation established a detailed action plan to reduce the prescribed number of 5,15 persons on January 1, 2009, and, in fact, decided on the restructuring agenda that the prescribed number of 5,115 persons shall be reduced annually until April 2012 by the board of directors open around April 2009, the Korean Railroad Workers' Union has consistently asserted the suspension of restructuring, such as withdrawal of the reduction of the prescribed number, and reinstatement of dismissed persons.

In addition, the public sector trade unions belonging to the National Federation of the Korean Democratic Railroad Workers' Unions, including the National Federation of the Korean Railroad Workers' Unions, have formed a joint strike headquarters around September 2009, and announced that the public sector trade unions, including the National Federation of the Korean Federation of the Korean Railroad Workers' Unions, should bring into the large government power strike and strengthen mutual ties with the aim of preventing the advancement of public sector policies such as the suspension of privatization in the public sector.

2) Meanwhile, in the collective agreement and wage agreements resumed on September 30, 2009, after the completion of the preceding strike, the Korean Railroad Workers’ Union declared the negotiations to the effect that there is a significant difference between the labor and management on the day, but continued collective bargaining until October 27, 2009. In this process, the Korean Railroad Workers’ Union applied for the adjustment of the wage claim, but rejected the adjustment proposal to the effect that the wage union proposed by the National Labor Relations Commission.

3) However, on October 10, 2009, the joint strike headquarters comprised of the Korean Railroad Workers' Union announced that the government will go into industrial action on November 6, 2009, centering on the place of business belonging to the joint strike headquarters, if the government does not go through negotiations. On October 12, 2009, the Korean Railroad Workers' Union also announced on October 12, 2009 that the first strike was conducted on November 5, 2009 with a view to public institution’s withdrawal of advancement policies, conflict, implementation of the agreement on reinstatement of dismissal, etc. The first strike was conducted on November 3, 2009; on November 5, 2009, the Seoul regional strike was conducted on November 6, 2009; on November 20, 2009, the second strike was conducted on November 29, 2009; on November 20, 2009, the second strike decided to extend the first strike to 10.29.

On November 4, 2009, the headquarters for the joint strike made a general appearance in the Korea Railroad Corporation on November 6, 2009 again, and made a detailed statement of the President's plan for the strike that is to conduct full-time strike in line with the advancement of the public enterprise (the change to November 28, 2009). The National Railroad Workers' Union was engaged in regional circular strike from November 5, 2009 to November 7, 2009, and due to the suspension of the operation of 327 passenger trains and 355 cargo trains, it caused a large amount of damage to the Korea Railroad Corporation due to operating income and compensation for replacement personnel.

4) After November 12, 2009, collective bargaining between the Korea Railroad Workers' Union and the Korea Railroad Corporation had been resumed, and collective bargaining and practical bargaining were conducted four times from November 24, 2009 in the form of special concentration.

However, the Korean Railroad Workers' Union is separate from this. On November 9, 2009 and November 13, 2009 and November 11, 2009.

18. On November 26, 2009, the National Standing Committee or the Committee on Countermeasures against Extension Disputes opened a meeting to discuss the postponement of the time of the full-scale strike due to the President's change in the schedule of the advanced workshop of the public enterprises, the final decision was made to conduct the full-time strike on November 26, 2009, with the aim of increasing new business and insufficient human resources, implementing the agreement on reinstatement of dismissed persons, etc., and issued the guidelines for the last strike of the full-time strike on November 23, 2009, and the guidelines for the strike for the participation in the resolution conference respectively.

In addition, on November 24, 2009, the Korean Railroad Workers' Union stated that the special intensive bargaining held on November 24, 2009 would give rise to a full-time strike on the ground of the rejection of the Korea Railroad Corporation, and that the Korea Railroad Corporation was unable to conclude an exemplary collective agreement through dialogue on the same day. On the same day, the Korea Railroad Corporation notified the termination of the existing collective agreement, the validity of which has been provisionally maintained pursuant to the extension clause, on the ground that it was difficult to conclude an exemplary collective agreement through dialogue. 5) The Korean Railroad Workers' Union issued an order of strike on November 25, 2009, and operated the full-time strike from November 26, 2009 to December 3, 2009. As the suspension of operation of passenger trains 99, freight trains 1,742, the amount of damages to the Korea Railroad Corporation due to the payment of compensation for losses and replacement manpower, etc.

C. Even if the following circumstances revealed based on the above facts, i.e., the intention of improving the wage level, etc. were not to be seen, the above circular strike and the full-scale strike based on the circumstance or development process, etc., clearly revealed that there was the main purpose of preventing the implementation of restructuring, such as the opposition to the advancement policy of public institutions, which cannot be subject to collective bargaining in accordance with the schedule and policy set by the joint strike headquarters, and the collective bargaining that continued immediately before the circular strike and the full-scale strike, seems to have not been completely displayed. Moreover, the Korea Railroad Corporation’s notification of the termination of collective agreement is likely to lead to the full-time strike and the subject of collective bargaining.

In addition, when comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Korea Railroad Corporation's response has no choice but to have a limit to the response of the Korea Railroad Corporation because it is not easy to replace its business due to the characteristics of the place of business, it is reasonable to evaluate that the Korea Railroad Corporation, which is engaged in essential public business that has a significant impact on public daily life or national economy, has difficulty in predicting that it would actually perform circular and full-time strike for the above unfair purpose, and it does not change because it was publicly notified or known and its employees did not participate in essential business. Furthermore, it does not change because the above Defendants participated in the circulation and full-time strike business that has been conducted on a national scale, resulting in massive losses due to the suspension of multiple trains due to the suspension of operation and the occurrence of large damages due to a large number of replacements, such as continuous input of human resources using trains, etc., which cause considerable damage to the daily life or economic activities of the people, thereby causing substantial confusion and serious damage to the operation of the Korea Railroad Corporation.

In conclusion, examining this in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above circular wave and full-scale strike are the power to control and confuse the Korea Railroad Corporation’s free will about the continuation of its business, which is the employer, and it is sufficient to view it as the power of the crime of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Korea Railroad Corporation on the ground that it is difficult to evaluate that circular wave and full-time strike were conducted at a time unforeseeable by the Korea Railroad Corporation, and that even if considerable damage was incurred due to the suspension of the operation of trains, it should be deemed due to the nature of the workplace itself. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on force in the crime of interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

I would like to raise an appeal.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding circular strike and full-scale strike is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young et al.

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Park Young-young