2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of designing, manufacturing, or selling automobile industrial parts, which employs not less than 870 full-time workers, and manufactures a Coster Mor, a motor vehicle starting equipment, and a Altern exchange power generator, etc., which are parts of a motor vehicle, and supplies it to the completed companies, such as Hyundai Motor Company.

See. The plaintiffs were the workers employed by the defendant, and were members of the National Metal Trade Union and its branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union and its branch (hereinafter referred to as the "branch of the Jineo Mando").

(b) Industrial action and lock-out by the defendant at the location of the slopingdo Subdivision;

(1) On February 4, 2010, in order to improve the fixed cost structure of guard workers, five workers wishing to convert production from among 13 workers of the guard workers of the factory No. 1 and 2 on February 4, 2010 are placed in production, and the remainder is exclusively in charge of the second factory security service, and the defendant takes measures to assign the first factory security service to the service company.

Z. The 70 members of the branch of Boseo Mando, from around 15:40 on February 4, 2010 to 16:00, she obstructed the Defendant’s delivery business by interfering with the passage of delivery vehicles entering the company for about 20 minutes by blocking the static door in front of the Defendant Company by either shutting the static door in front of the Defendant Company and parking two vehicles of the association on a street.

In addition, Boseo Mando Branch rejected 372 overtime work (17:30~19:30) of its members and 130 night work (21:0 to February 5, 2010) of its members, who were normally conducted on February 4, 2010, and 130 members’ night work (21:00 to February 5, 2010). On February 5, 2010, Boseo Man Mando Branch refused to take part in industrial action with the consent of 92% and decided to take part in industrial action with the consent of 92% at the general meeting of its members on February 5, 2010, and refused to take part in overtime work of 124 members (0:00 to 08:00) from February 2010 to October 27, 2010.

Secondly, on February 10, 2010, the Defendant requested a labor-management consultation to suspend industrial actions and to hold a labor-management consultation on the grounds that “in the situation where the suspension of the production of a finished vehicle is imminent due to the members’ failure to supply parts to the finished company due to the member’s negligence, but the suspension of the production of the finished company may cause large penalty upon the suspension of the production of the finished company.” On the same day, the Defendant continued industrial actions by asserting that the industrial action was withdrawn from the externalization of the security service.”

x. On February 11, 2010, the Defendant requested the Branch to suspend an industrial action during the period of annual paid leave from February 13, 2010 to February 17, 2010, on the ground that “the loading of the quantity of supply to the people in India due to an industrial action is delayed due to the industrial action, and the payment of bonuses may be delayed if the payment is delayed.” On February 13, 2010 to February 17, 2010, the Boeo Man Mando Branch decided to temporarily suspend the training and whether to work shall be decided to prohibit the support to another team.

After that, the Defendant received an application for holiday work from its members from February 13, 2010 to February 15, 2010, but it was difficult to organize a normal work due to the above decision of the branch of Boseo Mando. Accordingly, the Defendant notified the branch of Boseo Mando on February 12, 2010 and requested the branch of Boseo Mando to leave on holiday work from February 16, 2010 to February 17, 2010 on the premise of the withdrawal of industrial action from February 18, 2010. However, Boseo Mando Subdivision did not comply with this.

(v) Ultimately, the Defendant attempted to produce parts ordered by non-members of office workers, etc. who are non-members of the prefabricated during the period from February 13, 2010 to February 15, 2010. However, the members interfered with their power, and interfered with the production of new walls on February 13, 2010 by cutting off the power supply line of the prefabricated, which is a main production facility, to stop production lines.

⑹. 피고는 이에 대항하여 2010. 2. 16. 06:30부터 피고의 승용공장, 상용공장 전체에 대하여 발레오만도 지회 조합원의 출입을 전면 금지한다는 내용의 부분적인 직장폐쇄(이하 ‘이 사건 직장폐쇄’라 한다)를 하였다. 그 후 피고는 조합원들이 공장을 점거하거나 사무직 근로자들을 위해할 것이 우려된다는 이유로 조합원들의 공장 출입을 통제하면서, 사무직 근로자와 비조합원 근로자 250여명을 생산현장에 투입하여 생산활동을 계속하였다.

(c) An industrial action, etc. conducted to a branch of Leseo Mando;

(1) On February 18, 2010, Ageo Mando Subdivision demanded the Defendant to cancel the lock-out by asserting that “the aggressive lock-out by the Defendant is illegal because it violated the collective agreement, and the lock-out is also elective and anti-competitive.” On February 22, 2010, the Defendant’s aggressive lock-out was deemed unlawful, and thus, the entire members demand to withdraw the lock-out, since they return to the work on February 23, 2010.

However, the Defendant rejected the demand for withdrawal of a lock-out by asserting that “In light of the fact that: (a) even though the external security service is inherent authority of the user, it does not revoke the resolution to conduct an industrial action against it and even if it is going against it; and (b) the Defendant demanded only the withdrawal of a lock-out without presenting any counter or any measures to prevent recurrences; (c) it is difficult to deem that the declaration of return to the business without withdrawal of the counterclaim against the outsourcing of the security service is to terminate the industrial action and normalize the operation; and (d) if the lock-out is withdrawn, it is likely to continue the industrial action by entering the factory and leaving the factory as the producer.”

r. Boseo Mando Subdivision, from February 19, 2010 to block a lock-out with real force, was held in the Defendant’s factory, etc., and obstructed the Defendant’s business.

㈎. 발레오만도 지회 조합원 등은 2010. 2. 19. 10:15경부터 13:20경까지 피고 회사 앞에서 항의시위를 하면서, 경비원을 폭행해 상해를 가하고, 피고 회사 정문을 파손하고 피고 회사에 진입하였다.

㈏. 발레오만도 지회 조합원 등은 2010. 2. 20. 08:25경 피고 회사 앞에서 항의시위를 하였는데 그때 경비원을 폭행하여 상해를 입혔다.

㈐. 발레오만도 지회 조합원 등은 2010. 3. 2. 10:00경부터 11:30경까지 피고 회사 앞에서 조합원들이 연좌하여 비켜주지 아니하는 방법으로 납품차량의 출입을 방해하는 등 피고의 업무를 방해하고, 2010. 3. 3. 11:00경부터 14:20경까지 피고 회사 앞에서 조합원들이 팔짱을 끼거나 도로에 드러눕는 방법으로 납품차량의 출입을 방해하는 등 피고의 업무를 방해하였다.

㈑. 발레오만도 지회 조합원 등은 2010. 3. 4. 09:40경부터 14:00경까지 피고 회사 앞에서 회사 진입을 시도하다가 경주시 용강동 승삼사거리를 점거하였다.

• Meanwhile, on March 4, 2010, the Korean Metal Trade Union and its branch held a steering committee to jointly and severally engage in a strike against the Defendant’s lock-out at the 11st place of business affiliated with the racing branch on March 5, 2010, to refuse to overtime work, March 6, 2010, and March 7, 2010, to refuse to engage in overtime work on March 7, 2010, to refuse to work on March 8, 2010, and to work on March 9, 2010.

indicated that “A trade union’s withdrawal of a lock-out is erroneous in failing to withdraw the lock-out even if the union declares the suspension of industrial action and the return to work,” and that on April 22, 2010, the Plaintiff demanded the withdrawal of the lock-out on March 15, 2010 to the effect that “if the Defendant withdraws a lock-out, it may consult all the resignations including the resignations of the guidance division.”

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not revoke a resolution made by the branch to conduct industrial action against the externalization of the security service, and that the Defendant continues to engage in the act of slandering and insulting the representative director and office employees of the Defendant in the assembly and demonstration held by the branch, or in the civil propaganda materials held by the branch (in the case of the incentive published by the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the union), and that the Defendant sells the members individually returned to the production activities as a jury, and continues to threaten them, it is doubtful of the authenticity of the intention to return to work. In addition, if the Defendant releases a lock-out and returns the members to the production site, it is highly likely that the obstruction of business prior to the lock-out might be resumed. Accordingly, it is recognized that the branch of the branch of the Republic of Korea acknowledges the act of interference with business and if it is concluded that the authenticity of the trade union's normal operation is confirmed and the risk of interference with business has been resolved by the resolution of the industrial action on February 5, 2010>

(d) Decision of provisional disposition;

The Defendant’s workers, including the Plaintiffs, filed an application against the Defendant for a provisional disposition suspending the validity of a lock-out with Daegu District Court 2010Kahap58, and on May 19, 2010, the court rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall suspend the validity of a lock-out on February 16, 2010, and the Defendant shall not refuse to provide labor to the employees,” and the said ruling was served on the said employees on May 24, 2010, and on May 25, 2010, on each of the Defendant’s withdrawal of the lock-out on May 25, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, 6, Gap evidence 3, 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-6, 7-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the lock-out of this case, which the defendant performed from February 16, 2010 to May 24, 2010, is unlawful, and the defendant is obligated to pay wages as stated in the purport of the claim that can be received when he/she continued to work for the above period.

B. Determination

(1) A lock-out by an employer may be deemed a legitimate industrial action only when it is deemed reasonable as a means of defense against an industrial action by an employer in light of the specific circumstances regarding the negotiating attitude and progress between the employer and the employer, the form of the industrial action by the worker, and the degree of the degree of the strike the employer receives. Only when the lock-out is deemed a legitimate industrial action, the employer is exempted from the duty to pay wages to the worker during the lock-out period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da3431, May 26, 2000).

d. Determination on the legality of the Defendant’s lock-out

㈎. 직장폐쇄 개시의 적법성 여부

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the factual basis as seen earlier, the commencement of the lock-out in this case is deemed legitimate as a means of adequate defense to oppose the commencement of the industrial action of the branch, even after the commencement of the industrial action of the branch.

① On February 4, 2010, five members wishing to move to a production position among 13 employees in the guard service who wish to move to a production position are placed in a production position, and part of the security service was carried out. On February 4, 2010, Boeo Man Man Man Man Man Man Mando Branch rejected the members’ 372 overtime work (2 hours) and the members’ 130 night work (9 hours) without going through lawful procedures, and rejected 124 members’ 124 overtime work (2 hours) from February 9, 2010 to February 12, 2010.

② The above industrial action interferes with the Defendant’s supply of parts to a completed tea, and the Defendant concluded a large amount of penalty when it ceases to be the production of a completed tea due to the failure in the Defendant’s supply of parts with the completed tea.

③ On February 10, 2010, when there was a concern about the suspension of production of a company that was completed by the above type of occupation, the Defendant requested a branch association to suspend industrial action and labor-management consultation, but the branch association continued to engage in an industrial action on the ground that the industrial action cannot be discontinued without the withdrawal of the outsourcing of the security service.

④ On February 11, 2010, the Defendant again requested the branch office to suspend industrial action during the period from February 13, 2010 to February 17, 2010, and filed an application for holiday work for the said period from its members, but it was difficult to compile normal work for the said period in accordance with the “decision on the prohibition of support to other teams” at the branch office.

⑤ Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to produce the ordered parts by putting office workers, etc. into office during the period from February 13, 2010 to February 15, 2010, but interfered with the production process by cutting off the power supply line of a prefabricated, which is a major production facility, on February 13, 2010, and suspending production lines.

④ As of February 16, 2010, the Defendant carried out a partial lock-out from 06:30 on February 16, 2010 to prohibit the Defendant from completely entering the Defendant’s passenger-use factory and the entire commercial factory.

㈏. 직장폐쇄 유지의 적법성 여부

Meanwhile, the fact that Leseo Mando Subdivision requested the Defendant to return to work on February 22, 2010 and withdraw the lock-out from the Defendant, and then requested the Defendant to withdraw the lock-out several times thereafter is acknowledged as above. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned facts, even though Leseo Mando Subdivision requested the Defendant to withdraw the lock-out during the lock-out period and expressed his members’ intention to return to work, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view it as the genuine intention to return to work, and even though it was difficult to view it as the Defendant as the genuine intention to return to work, the lock-out cannot be revoked immediately after reliance on the Defendant’s intent to return to work solely on the said intent to return to work, and thus, it cannot be seen as maintaining the nature of the lock-out by 201 until May 25, 2010 as a legitimate defense against the industrial action.

① From February 19, 2010 to prevent a lock-out by the Defendant’s refusal of his/her request for withdrawal of a lock-out, an assembly or demonstration took place in the Defendant’s factory, etc., and continued criminal acts, such as interfering with the Defendant’s business by interfering with the Defendant’s entry of delivery vehicles, destroying static doors, assaulting security guards, etc.

② During the period from March 25, 2010 to April 27, 2010, Ameo Mando Subdivision distributed printed items containing false facts as to the Defendant’s credit and business in the vicinity of the place of business, or in the racing-si, and was punished by a chilling demonstration, which read, “I can see how I can see it in the spot?” in the vicinity of the workers’ home who did not participate in the strike on March 30, 2010.

③ However, even before May 24, 2010, the date of withdrawal of the instant lock-out, the Defendant permitted the members to return to work, even if they wish to return to work, and on May 24, 2010, the Defendant exceeded 300 members already returned to work.

④ As to the Defendant’s request for withdrawal of a lock-out at several times, the Defendant did not revoke a resolution to conduct an industrial action in opposition to the externalization of the security service. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s representative director and office staff have continued to conduct an act of slandering the Defendant’s employees in an assembly, demonstration or publicity, etc. held by the branch of the local association, and that the Plaintiff continues to sell the members individually returned to the production activities as a letter and threatened them, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s intention to return to the outside of the security service would be difficult to be deemed to terminate the industrial action and to normalize the operation. In addition, if the Defendant’s act of interference with the business prior to the lock-out is likely to be resumed if he releases the lock-out and returns the members to the production site, and the Defendant’s request for withdrawal of the lock-out was rejected on May 19, 2010, and upon the issuance of the lock-out at issue on May 20, 2015.

Article 25(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The lock-out of this case shall be deemed lawful from February 16, 2010 to May 24, 2010,” and thus, the Defendant shall be deemed exempted from the obligation to pay wages to the Plaintiffs during the said period.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Kim Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)