[부당노동행위및부당해고구제재심판정취소][미간행]
[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to view that the study abroad of the predecessor of the trade union constitutes the activity of the trade union because the title of the thesis used for research purpose is not related to the trade union activity and the study abroad of the predecessor of the trade union is for a long time of four years
[2] Status of a full-time worker of a trade union
[1] Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 24 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 14 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 24 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da34926 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2576), Supreme Court Decision 96Da26671 delivered on December 6, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 195), Supreme Court Decision 97Da54727 delivered on April 24, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1456), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da4815, 4822, 4839 delivered on September 24, 2003 (Gong203Ha, 1945) (Gong2003Da51675 delivered on February 27, 2004)
Plaintiff (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorneys Gin-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission
Korean Chemical Research Institute (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys White-tae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2002Nu16766 delivered on September 26, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
1. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the title of the thesis used for research in the UK is not related to the trade union activities, and in particular, because the study abroad for the purpose of acquiring such degree is for a long time of four years, it is difficult to view that the study abroad for the purpose of acquiring such degree constitutes the activities of the trade union. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the activities of the industrial trade union, or incomplete deliberation
2. A full-time officer of a trade union is exempted from the duty to provide labor in relation to the employer, is exempt from the employer’s duty to pay wages, and the basic labor-management relationship between the employer and the employee is maintained, and the application of rules of employment or the regulations is not entirely excluded. Thus, a full-time officer of a trade union is subject to the rules of employment or the regulations on studying abroad unless there are special provisions in the collective agreement or special practices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da34926, Aug. 24, 1993; 2003Da51675, Feb. 27, 2004). This does not change on the ground that the full-time officer of a trade union is limited to an industrial trade union that is not a company-level trade union, not an industrial trade union.
Examining the record in light of the above legal principles and records, there is no special provision in the collective agreement on study abroad of the full-time officer of the trade union, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a special practice that free study abroad without any control by the intervenor joining the trade union, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's study abroad constitutes the activities of the trade union. Although the full-time officer of the trade union is a full-time officer, the plaintiff is subject to the personnel rules of the intervenor joining the trade union, the entrusted education and training rules, and the decision of the court below that the plaintiff's voluntary departure from his office without any procedure under the above provisions is proper, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, distribution of the burden of proof, and the duty
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)