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

The Defendant’s corrective order issued to the Plaintiff on February 28, 201 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following part of the order to revoke is revoked. The part of Article 12 of the collective agreement among the order to correct collective agreements rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff on February 28, 2011 shall be revoked [the part of the order to correct collective agreements, as the plaintiff withdraws an appeal to the part regarding Article 1 of the collective agreement among the orders to correct collective agreements on the first date for pleading at the trial of the first instance, such withdrawn part shall not be included

The following facts may be recognized if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the parties gather the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number).

A. The Plaintiff is an industrial unit trade union established for the organization of workers in the plant construction industry.

B. On August 19, 2010, the Plaintiff Union concluded a collective agreement (Evidence A2; hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) with the company, etc. and 46 companies (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) in 2010.

C. The content of Article 12 of the instant collective agreement (hereinafter “instant provision”) is as follows.

Article 12 (Assistance to Labor Relations Adjustment) of the Table contained in the main sentence of Article 12 (Assistance to Labor Relations Adjustment) A company shall subsidize office supplies and assistance expenses for labor relations once a month as follows, and deliver them to the Trade Union and Labor Relations: 1. Less than 20 persons: 80,000 won, less than 2.70 persons: 120,000 won: 1.50,000 won:

D. The Defendant requested the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission to make a decision to take corrective measures on the ground that the instant provision of administrative expense subsidization violates the relevant provisions of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”). On January 11, 2011, the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission decided that the instant provision of administrative expense subsidization violates the Trade Union Act.

E. On February 28, 2011, the Defendant issued a corrective order pursuant to Article 31(3) of the Trade Union Act on the ground that the instant provision on administrative expense violates Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The provision on the administrative expense of this case does not fall under the main part of the expenses, but does not constitute unfair labor practices under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, since there is no significant risk of infringing the autonomy of the trade union by creating it at the Plaintiff’s request. Therefore, since the provision on the administrative expense of this case is lawful, the disposition of this case ordering the correction

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Table 1 is as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 81 Subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act prohibits an employer from engaging in unfair labor practices. The operating expenses refer to all the expenses incurred in the existence and activities of a trade union, including the purchase of goods, personnel expenses of the trade union, expenses incurred in meetings, such as meetings of the trade union conference, operation expenses of the trade union, and other expenses that need to be paid from the budget of the trade union. The operating expenses of the trade union shall be paid from the expenses of the trade union paid by the union members. If the trade union receives a subsidy from the employer for the operation of the trade union, it shall lose autonomy as an opposing organization, and even if not, it shall be prohibited from providing the employer with an opportunity to facilitate the control and alteration of the trade union. However, receiving a minimum amount of office from the employer (proviso to Article 81 Subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act). It shall be allowed to receive supplies and facilities such as electrical and electric facilities, which must be kept ordinarily together with the office, or it shall be prohibited from being paid by social norms.

(2) In the instant case, in light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 6-1 to 12, Eul evidence 2-2, and each of the above evidence, the provision on the administrative expense of this case provides that a trade union shall receive monthly money exceeding the supplies and facilities of books, chairs, electric facilities, etc. which the trade union should normally keep at the minimum size with the office of the trade union, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the administrative expense of this case constitutes an unfair labor practice under Article 81-4 of the Trade Union Act because it is difficult to view that there is no significant risk that the autonomy of the trade union is infringed due to the provision on the administrative expense of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① The instant provision provides that an employer shall pay a certain amount of money in accordance with the number of union members every month for office expenses and subsidies. As such, the provision provides that an employer shall pay a certain amount of money in proportion to the number of union members every month, whether it is within the scope of office expenses and office expenses acceptable under the generally accepted social norms as necessary for the operation of offices, and whether it is within the scope of office expenses and office expenses, regardless

② The gross income of the Plaintiff’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s other’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s other’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s other’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s one’s other’s one’s one’s one’s other.

본문내 포함된 표 ＼ 사무보조비(원) 총수입(원) 사무보조비 비율(%) 2005년도(1월 - 12월) 64,450,000 704,041,504 9.15 2008년도(1월 - 10월) 24,420,000 398,773,717 6.12 2009년도(1월 - 10월) 33,399,500 298,933,944 11.17 2010년도(1월 - 12월) 43,328,000 1,026,146,128 4.22

③ Since the instant provision provides that an employer shall pay a certain monthly amount of money, an employer may not refuse a trade union’s demand for payment at the stage of enforcing the instant collective agreement with regard to the portion exceeding the expenses that the trade union is able to provide pursuant to relevant laws and regulations.

④ According to the instant provision, regardless of whether a trade union actually uses the office, incidental facilities, and fixtures, it is likely that a trade union would receive a certain amount of administrative subsidy every month and provide an opportunity for employers to be able to easily control and reform the trade union by deepening dependence on employers.

⑤ Even if the instant provision on labor expense was enforced since the time when the first collective agreement (Evidence A No. 3) was concluded in 192 by the provision that the Plaintiff demanded the employer to pay office expenses, subsidies, etc. and agreed to provide them to the employer, and thereafter, it constitutes a security guard prohibited from being provided by an employer pursuant to Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, if a trade union, in the form of a collective agreement, is likely to receive a considerable amount of office expenses every month, regardless of whether the labor union has actually used the office expenses, incidental facilities, and fixtures, as seen earlier, regardless of whether it has actually been used as a trade union office expenses, ancillary facilities, and fixtures.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case is just and there is no ground for appeal by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)