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

A. On November 2, 2000, the Plaintiff received a certified labor affairs consultant’s license from the Defendant. On October 1, 2002, the Plaintiff established “B” engaging in labor consulting, etc. on October 1, 2002, and registered the commencement of certified labor affairs consultant’s duties on October 8, 2002.

B. On October 21, 2013, at the Defendant’s request for a resolution on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on October 21, 2013, the former Disciplinary Committee was established on November 5, 2013 (hereinafter “former Disciplinary Committee”). The Minister of Employment and Labor, the members of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, the Seoul Regional Labor Agency E, the Korea Certified Public Labor Attorney Association F, the Korean Bar Association G, the Ministry of Government Legislation H (However, as the chairperson of the previous Disciplinary Committee did not attend the previous Disciplinary Committee, the Ministry of Government Legislation H was in charge of the chairperson). The previous Disciplinary Committee did not include “the person designated by the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission from among Grade III public officials of Grade III of the National Labor Relations Commission or public officials in general service belonging to the Senior Civil Service.” On November 7, 2013, the first Disciplinary Committee resolved on “1 year and six months for the Plaintiff,” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of this (hereinafter “previous Disposition”).

From June 3, 2011 to June 15, 2011, the Plaintiff presented a strategy to fundamentally prevent the establishment of a trade union in the form of a report on the diagnosis in the field of labor-management relations (the title of the document refers to a report on the examination of labor union response for future win-win management; hereinafter referred to as the "report in this case") with 5 affiliated companies of Group 5 from June 3, 201 to June 21, 201. The Plaintiff recommended that the labor union share the results of the J diagnosis that includes a large number of unfair labor practices and provided consultation on acts that violate the law, such as explaining the results of the diagnosis at the workshop held by each company's management strategy room, and it constitutes a violation of the duty of care and good faith under Article 13 (3) and Article 12 (1) and (20) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Certified Public Labor Attorney Act").

D. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for a ruling on the previous disposition, but was dismissed on April 1, 2014, and thereafter filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the previous disposition on April 24, 2014. In order to deliberate on and resolve a disciplinary action against a certified public labor attorney, the Seoul District Court, including the Chairperson, issued a ruling revoking the previous disposition on July 24, 2014 (2014Guhap756), and the above ruling became final and conclusive on August 9, 2014. The Defendant requested re-resolution of the Plaintiff on September 2, 2014, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to take the same disciplinary action as the Plaintiff on September 17, 2014, and notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of work on the same ground as the Plaintiff on September 14, 2014 (the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of work on the same ground as the Plaintiff on September 26, 2014).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 8, 9, 13, and 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition was made upon a request for a disciplinary decision after the lapse of the statute of limitations, and it is unlawful in the process without going through the procedure of setting standards for disposition and making public announcement. The Plaintiff entered into a contract to submit a labor management diagnosis report with a group management strategy room around May 201 and submitted a NJ response project report for management of labor and management according to the contract, and there is no ground for disciplinary action since the Plaintiff did not provide guidance and consultation in violation of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Even if the grounds for disciplinary action exist, the instant disposition was excessive compared to the Plaintiff’s misconduct, thereby deviating from and abusing the right of disciplinary action.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) recognized facts1);

1) On May 3, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the International Group Management Strategy Office to submit a report on the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to group 5 affiliate companies, whether there exists a tort related to lower-in and lower-in management, and to receive KRW 20 million for service fees (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”), and provided the head of the K division of the Management Strategy Office with “the check criteria for countermeasures against labor-management issues” under the said contract. From June 3, 2011 through June 15, 2011 to June 15, 2011, the Plaintiff conducted a labor-management diagnosis in a manner of visiting a person in charge of labor-management management of five companies, such as L, M, N,O, and J, which are affiliates of the I Group, on three occasions more than three occasions (hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23000, Jun. 21, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23025, Jun. 21, 2017>

2) The main contents of the proposal (No. 3) submitted by the Plaintiff to the I Group Management Strategy Office on May 19, 201 for the conclusion of the instant contract are as follows.

Details of progress by phase

Notice on the selection of persons eligible for KS/MJB level if there is existence of internal management strategies and implementation thereof;

3) The main contents of the “Standards for Inspection of Response to Labor-Management Issues (Evidence No. 4)” (Evidence No. 4) that the Plaintiff provided to the Group Management Strategy Office for the management diagnosis of labor-management are as follows.

1. S/MJ management of KS/MJ on 6. Trends and observation / observation / P27. Externalized scenario - Pusush8 through job management management - scenarios for internal management scenarios, Coaching scenarios, Coaching scenarios, personal solidarity trust formation scenario II. 1. at the early stage of the occurrence, - evidence collection, situation, information, response, etc. 2. On the response organization 1. at the early stage of the occurrence - On the response organization scenario 3. Person in charge of the response organization scenario - On the response organization scenario 3. On the other hand, on the date of the subscriber's confirmation 9. Saio 9. Saemnes 11. Saemnes 11.

12. Report 112: Report 112; Report 112; Report 112; Report e-mail deleted; Notice 19; Notice 20. Whether the individual management officer of KS/MJ is designated following the occurrence of scenarios for preventing the spread of subscribers;

4) The main contents of the instant report (Evidence A 20) sent by the Plaintiff to the I Group Management Strategy Office on July 4, 2011 are as follows.

1. Method of project approach and prevention of prior examination of structure: The cause of labor-management problems and environment? The main issue: MJ/KS or external force only (system, working conditions, etc.) and method of stabilizing grievances (divities), what is the conditions for early resolution of the NJ? What is an organizational power that can be avoided by force? The results of NJ diagnosis of the NJ response ability on 2. NJ response factors on 3. A comprehensive opinion on the results of diagnosis of affiliates;

DJ

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

4.4An effective interview, 4.4.1, the purpose of the interview - the rating of the class A for the degree of infections of the removed person from the position of the interviewr: The class A for the degree of infections of the person removed from the position of the interviewr: estimated C grade: It is unclear, but it is not clear that the NJ has an interest in the present situation: NJ response scenarios on April 5, 196.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] The judgment is based on the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, 20, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and all pleadings.

1) As to procedural defects

A) As to whether the statute of limitations has lapsed

(1) In a case where a disciplinary action was taken within the lawful period of prescription, but a disciplinary action was re-guilty due to a procedural defect or excessive disciplinary action, the period of prescription for the disciplinary action should be based on the time when the initial disciplinary decision was requested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2945, May 26, 1981; 97Nu1935, Feb. 5, 199).

(2) On June 21, 201, the grounds for the instant disposition were examined as to the instant case. The Plaintiff’s act of presenting the instant report around June 21, 201, and it can be acknowledged that the first demand for disciplinary resolution was made on October 10, 2013, before three years elapse, which is the prescription period of disciplinary action under Article 20(5) of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act. Thus, the Defendant demanded disciplinary resolution within three years from the time of the occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action. Thus, even if the instant disposition was made after three years from the time of the occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(3) In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the disciplinary action cannot be again requested for the same disciplinary cause, unless there is a provision on the purport that in a case where the court rendered a judgment of invalidation or revocation of the disciplinary action due to defects in the procedure, etc., as prescribed in Article 83-2(3) of the State Public Officials Act and Article 66-3(3) of the Private School Act (amended by Act No. 1324, Mar. 27, 2015), the Plaintiff may not demand the disciplinary action again within three months from the final date of the judgment. However, in a case where the first request for disciplinary action was lawfully made within the period of prescription, even if the first request for disciplinary action was confirmed or revoked by judicial judgment, it is possible to request a disciplinary resolution within three months from the date of the first request for disciplinary action, and it cannot be said that the disciplinary action cannot be conducted unless there is such provision (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu13535, Feb. 5, 199).

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B) Article 20 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency shall determine and publicly announce the necessary disposition standards as long as possible in light of the nature of the disposition concerned. Article 20(1)2 of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that an administrative agency may choose and publicly announce the guidelines for disciplinary action so that it is considerably difficult due to the nature of the disposition concerned or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the administrative agency may substantially undermine the safety and welfare of the public. Here, the purport of imposing an obligation on the administrative agency to specifically determine and publicly announce the guidelines for disciplinary action is to increase predictability of the outcome of the disposition and ensure fairness, transparency, and reliability of the administration. However, it is difficult for the administrative agency to clearly determine and publicly announce the guidelines for disciplinary action in accordance with Article 20 of the Administrative Procedures Act to ensure that the administrative agency’s prior announcement of the guidelines for disciplinary action is not in violation of the Act on the Protection of Certified Public Labor Attorney’s own discretion within a certain scope, and thus, it may be deemed that such administrative agency’s prior announcement of the guidelines for disciplinary action may not be made.

A) Article 2(1)3 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act provides that a certified public labor attorney may provide consultation and guidance on labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes and labor management. Articles 12 and 13 subparag. 3 provide that a certified public labor attorney shall always maintain his/her dignity and perform his/her duties fairly and in good faith. Where a certified public labor attorney is unable to perform his/her duties fairly, he/she shall not perform the duties provided for in Article 2, and shall not provide guidance and counseling on acts in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes or other similar acts. Article 20(1)5 and 6 provides that "where a certified public labor attorney violates his/her duty to maintain dignity, good faith, etc. under Article 12" and "where a person commits any act prohibited under each subparagraph of Article 13" as grounds for disciplinary action.

On the other hand, Article 81 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that an employer may not control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union and provide the full-time officer of a trade union with salary or with assistance in operating expenses of a trade union. Here, the "organization and operation of a trade union" includes all cases in which a trade union is organized from the preparation stage to organize a trade union, and the employer has a leading influence on the exercise of the right to organize, such as the organization and operation of a trade union. As a result, the decision-making of a trade union is at the stage of the employer's decision-making, and the intervention does not reach the degree of control, but it interferes with

B) As to the submission of the instant report

According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff conducted labor management diagnosis for five affiliates of the group, and submitted the report of this case via three revisions at the request of the group management strategy room, and presented strategies, etc. to prevent the establishment of a trade union at source to the group which has not yet been established by the trade union. This means guidance, counseling, and other similar acts as to unfair labor practices prohibited under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and as such, it violates Article 12(1) of the Certified Labor Affairs Consultant Act, which shall perform duties fairly by presenting measures to interfere with the organization and operation of the trade union in the employer’s part. Thus, this part of the grounds for disposition is recognized.

(1) In light of the fact that the proposal submitted by the plaintiff to the group includes the "non-management consensus and mutually beneficial philosophy education", "KS/MJ management", "externalization scenarios", "internal management strategy," "internal management strategy," "co-management delay scenarios", "subscribers for the delay in collective bargaining", "subscribers for the prevention of spread of subscribers" and "subscribers for resolution by case of subscribers", the purpose of the contract of this case is to prevent the establishment of labor union in accordance with the employer's non-labor union management policy beyond normal labor management and to suggest specific means to prevent the spread of labor union established.

(2) The Plaintiff’s check criteria for response to labor-management issues provided to the group is also an examination item that considers that the Plaintiff’s “standards for inspection of response to labor-management issues” should share the philosophy of labor-management at the pre-signing stage, manages interested members and problem members on the premise that they share the philosophy of labor-management, and includes the trend of human resources that may join the labor union through externalization scenarios or through internal management scenarios, and requires a trade union to withdraw when it visits after ascertaining the participants of the labor union in the early stage of the occurrence of countermeasures, such as evidence collection, information provision, response response, etc., and then requires the trade union to withdraw the notices installed by the labor union, prevent the spread of the union and prevent the spread of the union members by various means according to the individual characteristics. As such, it seems that the pre-establishment of labor-management, like the proposal, presented the standards for the matters that the union has already established, to prevent the spread of the union.

(3) The Plaintiff, via the instant report, presented the opinion to the effect that the conditions for early resolution of a trade union from 1. project approach and diagnosis structure of the labor union are organizational history, isolation, and workplace music. (2) The NU response diagnosis result: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the Plaintiff was authorized to establish a database on the problem members; (c) the core material and main employees to withdraw from the labor union; (d) the other problem members to replace the role of the labor union by strengthening the status of the labor union; (c) by preventing the organization of the labor union; (d) encouraging the training of the core material and main employees to solve the problems of the labor union; (e) preventing the labor union from participating in the labor union’s activities; (c) securing the externalization (e.g., removal of retirement); (e., labor union participants and interested members; (e) establishing a labor union’s response team in advance; and (e) establishing a new labor union’s response team; and (e) establishing a new labor union’s response team, etc., taking part in the organization and labor-management team.

In order to prevent the organization and activities of trade unions, specific guidelines for measures to be taken were provided.

B) With respect to the joint and radio waves as a result of the NJ response diagnosis of '2. NJ response results of the report of this case, the term "comprehensive opinion" states that the NJ's management and utilization cases of the J's family members, operational cases of the labor-management council, response organization establishment and training cases need to be shared and transferred to affiliated companies, and '3. Results of the examination of affiliated companies' indicate two or more family members for each affiliated company, i.e., labor union members by setting up two or more staff members for each affiliated company, i.e., union members, respectively, and take disciplinary action against piracy organizations (c.s., fences in charge of site checking, fences in charge of site checking, fences in charge of patrol, etc.), regional organizations (in fact-finding, field response, preparation of interview documents, rental), best response (family personnel), etc., and that the report of this case constitutes an unfair labor consultation and dissemination of the report of this case, as long as it has been submitted by many affiliated companies at the time of the examination and dissemination of the report of this case.

C) On the part that explained the result of the diagnosis at the workshop

The Plaintiff asserts that there was no attendance at the workshop on the result of the previous disciplinary investigation conducted on June 23, 201 at the I Management Strategy Office. ① The J Changdong Store P stated that “the Plaintiff attended the workshop and speaks on the result of the inspection” on April 26, 2013, but the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office stated that “the Plaintiff did not have participated in the workshop as a result of the final confirmation,” and submitted to the Defendant a written confirmation to the effect that “the Plaintiff did not have participated in the workshop” on November 4, 2013, ② the head of the I Management Strategy Team leader at the I Management and Strategy Team at the time of the police investigation conducted on February 13, 2013, it is difficult to acknowledge that the three employees of the B were present at the 20th meeting and conducted on an oral basis after visiting the five outside staff members, and then, the head of the 10th meeting team leader at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for the placement of personnel affairs and other relevant facts.

3) As to whether a disciplinary decision deviates from or abused discretion

A) Whether to take a disciplinary measure against a person subject to disciplinary action is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take a disciplinary measure is deemed to abuse the discretionary power that has been placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as a result of the exercise of discretionary power, it shall be deemed unlawful. In a case where it is sufficient to recognize the validity of the disciplinary measure only with some other grounds recognized even if some of the grounds for disciplinary measures are not recognized, it shall not be deemed unlawful even if the disciplinary measure is maintained (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19144, Feb. 25, 200). If a disciplinary measure is deemed to be a disposition beyond the scope of discretionary power because it has considerably lost validity under social norms, it shall be deemed that the contents and nature of the disciplinary measure, the purpose for which the disciplinary measure is to be achieved, and the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc., are considered to be unlawful objectively and clearly taking into account various factors (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du9599, Nov. 25, 2005).

B) According to Article 1 of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act, the purpose of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act is to contribute to the promotion of workers' welfare and the sound development of enterprises by promoting smooth operation of labor-related affairs and autonomous labor management in a business or workplace. ② Accordingly, guidance and consultation that do not reach the degree of infringing on the autonomous decision-making of workers or employers can be conducted with respect to the remaining disciplinary reasons except for the part for which the Plaintiff explained the result of the diagnosis at the workshop. ③ The instant report submitted to the I Group, an employer, is not allowed to infringe on the workers’ independent right to organize and operate the labor union, and the right to collective bargaining as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Constitution. ③ The purpose of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act is to ensure smooth operation of labor-related affairs and to contribute to the promotion of workers’ welfare and the sound development of the company. The instant report is not to clearly affect the organization of the labor union, specific methods of and standards for inspecting the already established labor union, response or scenarios, and thus, it cannot be objectively considered that the instant report considerably inappropriate and abuse of public discretion.

3. Conclusion

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

Judgment Notarial decoration

Support for Judges

It seems to mean.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.