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

A. The chairperson of the Plaintiff Trade Union (hereinafter “Plaintiff Trade Union”) proposed 10 items of the proposed amendment of the rules, such as amending “matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal from a union,” which is stipulated as the resolution of the representative conference in accordance with Article 23 subparag. 5 of the above union rules (amended by April 28, 2010; hereinafter “instant rules”), as the agenda of the 99 representative conference held on March 4, 2010, the amendment of the rules was rejected. However, the amendment of the 10 items of the 10 items of the proposed amendment of the rules, which was the 10 items of the “matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal from a union” to the general meeting.

B. On April 15, 2010, 33 registered representatives, such as the representative, Nonparty 2, etc. of the Plaintiff Trade Union and Labor Relations Council submitted a written request for holding a conference for the purpose of the conference to the Plaintiff Trade Union. However, Nonparty 1 did not comply with the request for convening the above conference.

C. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission publicly announced the intent to hold an urgent general meeting with the “matters concerning the amendment of the Regulations (matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal of a union organization)” as an agenda item, etc.

D. From April 27, 2010 to April 28, 2010, Plaintiff Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment held the above general meeting and passed a resolution with the consent of 80.18% of the union members on the agenda that “matters concerning the amendment of the regulations” and “matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal from a union organization,” which are stipulated as the resolution of the representatives conference pursuant to Article 23 subparag. 1 and 5 of the instant regulations, as well as the “matters concerning the establishment, joining, or withdrawal from the union” as the general meeting’

E. On June 8, 2010, three representatives, non-party 2, etc. of the representatives of the Congress filed an application for a corrective order with the Defendant on the ground that the instant resolution violated Article 23 subparag. 1, 5, and Article 96 of the Rules. On September 17, 2010, the Defendant received a corrective order from the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on the resolution of the instant general assembly, and on December 3, 2010, issued a corrective order on December 3, 2010 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1-3 evidence, Eul's 1-4 evidence, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the corrective order of this case is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant corrective order is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Even though Article 16(1)1 and 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides for the “matters concerning the modification of regulations,” and “matters concerning the establishment, admission, or withdrawal of a union organization,” which are determined by the resolution of the general meeting, the general meeting of union members does not mean that the enactment and amendment of the regulations, as the highest resolution body of the union members, conforms to the democracy of the union, should be decided through the general meeting of union members, and thus, it does not mean that the voting rights of the general meeting should be excluded.

2) According to Article 17 Subparag. 6 of the instant protocol, “other important matters” shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting. “Matters concerning the modification of the bylaws” and “matters concerning the establishment, accession, or withdrawal of the associated organization” shall be deemed to correspond thereto.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the resolution passed by the Congress can be substituted by the resolution of the Congress

Article 16(1)1 and 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides for “matters concerning the enactment and modification of regulations” and “matters concerning the establishment, accession, or withdrawal of a union organization” as matters to be resolved at a general meeting. However, Article 17(1) of the same Act provides that “matters concerning the enactment and amendment of regulations” may be substituted by the rules of a trade union. Article 23 of the same Act also reflects such purport, “matters concerning the establishment and amendment of regulations” under subparagraph 1 and Article 5 of the same Act provides “matters concerning the establishment, accession, or withdrawal of a union,” as matters concerning the resolution of a general meeting. In comparison with Article 17 of the same Act and Article 23 of the same Act that provide for the resolution of a general meeting, the function of the general meeting and representative meeting is clearly distinguishable by the rules of the general meeting. In such cases, even if the general meeting is the highest deliberative body under the Plaintiff’s union, it seems that the representative of another institution, which is the chief of the meeting, can not pass the general meeting’s resolution through the amendment of the general meeting.

2) Whether it can be seen as “other important matters” under Article 17 subparag. 6 of the Code

The phrase “other important matters” stipulated in the above provision refers to matters that are not listed in the resolution of a general meeting or a representative meeting and are important to the extent that they should undergo a resolution of a general meeting. However, it is difficult to deem that the phrase “matters concerning the amendment of the regulations” and “matters concerning the joining or withdrawal of a partnership organization,” which are specified as the resolution of a representative meeting, constitute this.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since the resolution of the general assembly of this case is unlawful due to procedural defect, there is no illegality in the corrective order of this case to correct it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)