손해배상(기)
1. All counter-claim claims filed by the counter-claimer are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit incurred by a counterclaim shall be borne by the counterclaim.
Basic Facts
The counter-party defendant is a person who purchased the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Industrial Site and Factory Building (hereinafter referred to as the "instant site and building") owned by D from D (hereinafter referred to as D), and the counter-party is a worker of D and is a member of the D subdivision belonging to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Metal Trade Union Branch (hereinafter referred to as the "the headquarters of this case").
Around September 11, 2015, D entered into a contract with a counterclaim Defendant to sell the instant site and building (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and sought cooperation to the president of the Seoul District District Office of the Korea Metal Workers’ Union and the branch of the instant trade union around October 12, 2015, and to work in a newly prepared factory, stating that the instant site and building were sold.
On October 2015, the filing of the previous principal lawsuit D consented to the entry of the instant land by the counter-defendant so that the counter-defendant could conduct in advance the geological survey, survey, etc. necessary for the authorization, permission, etc. related to the land development project of the counter-defendant at the request of the counter-defendant.
However, the members, who belong to the division of the instant trade union, avoided access of the counterclaim Defendant, etc. on the ground that they did not properly explain or consent to the trade union regarding the sale of the instant site and building.
Around December 29, 2015, the counterclaim Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the removal of the instant trade union subdivision from the instant site and the instant trade union subdivision (hereinafter referred to as “previous lawsuit”) with the competent court No. 2015Gahap112062, including the counterclaims, to seven members and the instant trade union subdivision.
Around April 11, 2016, the counterclaim Defendant continued to remove the trade union office of this case and the counterclaim of this case.