[Judgment of the court below]

Not more than the original city:

Gao representative director

Attorney COO

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On April 22, 2008, the plaintiffs are the employees belonging to the defendant and the members of the National Labor Union** Gyeongnam Branch of the Trade Union*** 'Trade Union' (hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union'). (ii) On April 22, 2008, the trade union notified the defendant of the purport that "it shall refer to his work to use the hours of education for union members for one hour from May 2, 2008 in accordance with Article 19 of the Organization Convention and cooperate with the defendant for one hour from May 11 to 12:00 to 00, and the defendant sent the labor union of April 29, 2008 that "the recognition of the hours of education for union members based on Article 19 of the Organization Convention is not a legitimate act of association as part of legitimate activities of association, so it does not change the purpose of Article 19 of the Organization Convention as well as the legitimate purpose and purpose of Article 19 of the Organization Convention, and thus, it does not change the purpose of education and reply."

(3) On April 29, 2008, a trade union sent to the Defendant a letter of objection to the request re-requesting that the trade union intends to conduct its business on the part of its members, and the method and purpose of education for its members are to determine the trade union, and to recognize the union members' training hours. However, the Defendant still expressed its intention to reject the request at the same position.

(4) On April 30, 2008 and the second day of the following month, the trade union distributed a newsletter and publicity materials containing contents such as defects in the participation in the heat death trend and the appearance in the court room in 2008, and on May 2, 2008, the defendant posted a notice stating that "an illegal assembly which was ice of the memorial system should be withdrawn, respectively."

(5) However, from May 2, 2008 to 12:00 on May 2, 2008, a trade union conducted 'labor fever OO's memorials and 'the appearance of 2008 'the assembly of this case' (hereinafter referred to as 'the assembly of this case'), and 262 members including the plaintiffs were present at the assembly of this case.

(6) The defendant conducted a fact-finding investigation on 262 members, including the plaintiffs, who attended the meeting of this case, held a disciplinary committee and suspended attendance (1 to 3 days), and conducted disciplinary action such as reduction of salary, reprimand (hereinafter referred to as the "instant disciplinary action"), and did not pay wages such as the statement in the "request amount" column for the corresponding period to the plaintiffs who were subject to disciplinary action such as the statement in the attached Table "Disciplinary action" column.

(7) Members, including the plaintiffs, and the National Metal Trade Union filed an application for remedy to the Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission that the instant disciplinary action constitutes unfair disciplinary action and unfair labor practices. The Gyeongnam Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the instant application by stating that the instant assembly is a part of the cooperative activity that enables education to learn knowledge, skills, and character. The review decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, which raised an objection thereto, is recognized as grounds for disciplinary action, but revoked some of the decision on dismissal by deeming that the disciplinary action against the workers who were subject to the warning, reduction of salary, and reprimand, was unfair, and the defendant is currently dissatisfied with the review decision and is currently filing a lawsuit for revocation with the Seoul Administrative Court.

(8) Meanwhile, from the year 198 to the year 2003, a trade union implemented the memorial system as stipulated in Article 19 of the collective agreement. The defendant recognized it as educational hours. Since the change of the defendant's representative director, only the distribution of printed articles related to memorial affairs was made in 2004, which was after the change of the defendant's representative director, and in 2005, the defendant was subject to disciplinary action by holding a memorial system while engaging in a joint strike with the Gyeongnam branch of the trade union. In 2006, the memorial system was implemented during the period of occupation in 2006, and in 2007, the finial was exercised during the period of the finial period.

B. Relevant provisions

(1) Constitution

Article 33

(1) Workers shall have the right to independent association, the right to collective bargaining and the right to collective action to improve the terms and conditions of labor. (2) Article 11 of the collective agreement (Guarantee of Cooperative Activities)

1. The Company shall ensure the legitimate activities of unions.

2. The following hours of union activities shall be recognized in consultation with the company, and such hours shall be regarded as hours of service:

(i)not more than the general assembly of regular or temporary members;

8) Other time agreed upon with the company.

9) Operating hours of the Election Commission during various election periods;

3. The company shall be deemed to have worked for the hours and days during which it has not worked for both a union and a union member's legitimate activities, and shall not be disadvantageously treated;

Article 19 (Training of Trade Union)

1. Only new members (including internal decoration) shall, at the request of an association, grant four hours to the association during education hours.

2. The education of existing members shall be provided for eight hours annually to unions;

Article 31 (Categories of Disciplinary Actions)

Disciplinary actions shall be classified into minor disciplinary actions and heavy disciplinary actions, and prescription shall be as follows:

1. Minor disciplinary action: Limitation shall be limited to reprimand, suspension of attendance, and reduction of pay, and the period of prescription shall be six months;

1) Reprimands shall be directed for the future.

2) The suspension of attendance shall not exceed 10 days per time.

3) The reduction of salary shall not exceed one month and shall not exceed 10 per cent of average wages.

(3) Omission below the disciplinary regulations

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, Eul 1 to 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues and determination of the instant case

A. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant assembly is included in the scope of “education on trade unions” as stipulated in Article 19(2) of the collective agreement, i.e., whether there are grounds for disciplinary action as asserted by the Defendant against the Plaintiffs who participated in the instant assembly.

B. In light of the purport and contents of each provision, Article 11 of the collective agreement applies between the plaintiffs and the defendant provides that the defendant shall guarantee the legitimate activities of the union, but the time related to the "regular or temporary union members" and "other time for activities that the union consulted with the company," including the "regular or temporary union members," shall be recognized in consultation with the defendant and shall be deemed to have worked at that time, and Article 19 (2) of the collective agreement provides that the education of the existing union members shall be paid for eight hours a year." In light of the purport and contents of each provision, the "consultation" referred to in Article 11 of the collective agreement is a relationship between the union and the defendant in which such union activities are conducted during the working hours and

It is reasonable to see that it is necessary to coordinate opinions for Dong to enforce, and further, “other Congress”

(2) In light of the legislative intent and contents of the right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action guaranteed by the Constitution, and the fact that it is difficult to recognize the meaning of the collective bargaining activity of the above 10-year educational labor union as an actual collective bargaining activity since the establishment of the 20-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 20-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 20-year educational labor union, the establishment of the 20-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 20-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 3-year educational labor union, and the establishment of the 3-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 3-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 4-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 1-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 1-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 3-year educational labor union, the 20-year educational labor union and the establishment of the 3-year educational labor union and the 20-year educational labor union and the 3-year educational labor union will not be justified.

The plaintiffs' act of taking part in the assembly of this case is a disciplinary cause, and disciplinary action as stated in the attached Table "Disciplinary Action" column is unlawful and unfair because it interferes with legitimate union activities as provided in the collective agreement. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money recorded in the attached Table "Request Money" column, which is not paid to the plaintiffs for the reason of disciplinary action and the damages for delay.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims are justified.