2. The defendant is innocent;

Article 44 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides for the so-called principle of no-work-free wage for workers who participated in an industrial action and do not provide labor during that period. Thus, if the wages for the full-time officer of a trade union (hereinafter “full-time officer”) are viewed as wages, it cannot be viewed as a violation of a collective agreement that the defendant paid wages to the full-time officer of a non-indicted 2 and 3 of the non-indicted 1 corporation whose representative director is the defendant during the industrial action, and even if the wages for the full-time officer are not considered as wages, the illegal strike was conducted under the direction of the full-time officer, so the defendant is not obligated to pay the wages to the full-time officer during the illegal strike period.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that the Defendant was liable to pay wages to full-time

2. Determination

A. Although a full-time worker is maintained in basic labor-management relations between the employer and his/her status as an employee, it is similar to a worker in temporary retirement status in that he/she is exempted from the duty to provide labor and the employer is also exempted from the duty to pay wages, and even if the employer pays a certain amount to the full-time officer of the trade union according to the collective agreement, etc.,

B. However, Article 9 of the collective agreement between the above company and the trade union of this case provides that the employee's full-time employee's benefits during the full-time period of service shall be borne by the company, the employee's full-time employee shall be deemed to have worked, and the employee's full-time employee's benefits shall not be treated disadvantageously. In the case of cancellation of the full-time employee's full-time employee's transfer, the employee's full-time employee shall be reinstated to his/her original position and return to an equal position. This provision provides that the employee's full-time employee shall be respected to the maximum extent that he/she shall not be treated disadvantageously to the ordinary member who is engaged in the employee's work provided under the labor contract. Thus, it is reasonable to treat the employee's full-time employee's more favorable than the ordinary member's wages in light of the purpose and purport stipulated in the collective agreement above, and that the employee's full-time employee's full-time employee's wages shall not be paid from the employee's full-time employee's full-time employee's wages.

C. However, according to the records, the part of the wages of a full-time employee who was not paid by the defendant is recognized as part of the worker's period of the strike. According to the above legal principles, the defendant did not have an obligation to pay wages to a full-time employee during the period of the strike pursuant to the collective agreement of this case. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged under the premise that the defendant was liable to pay wages to a full-time employee during the period

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed as the above grounds for reversal, and it is so decided as follows.

Judges in English and English (Presiding Judge)