2013Kahap49 Provisional Disposition for no entry

1. Stock company X Heavy Industries;

2. Y

Applicant-Appellant Law Firm Sejong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee]

Applicant X Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Young-jin

Respondents in the attached Table 1 are as listed in the table.

Respondents 1 through 5, 7 through 13, 15 through 21, 23, and 26 Attorney Park Dong-young

Law Firm Jin, Law Firm

[Defendant-Appellant]

January 25, 2013

1. Respondent A, B, and C shall not engage in, or cause a third party to engage in, any conduct listed in the separate sheet 2 within 100 meters from the site of the residential building site of the applicant Y* the applicant Y in Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, * within the radius of 100 meters.

2. The applicant's remaining claims and remaining claims against the above respondent are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. The respondent is within the office of the applicant Y in Yongsan-gu Seoul *, Yongsan-gu, Seoul *.

each act listed in the separate sheet No. 3 at a place within a radius of 500 meters from the house; or

No third party shall be allowed to do such an act as above.

2. An execution officer shall make a public announcement in an adequate manner to the effect under paragraph (1).

3. In case where the respondent violates the order as referred to in paragraph (1), one million won per each time of the violation.

Corporation shall pay to the applicant the Corporation.

1. Facts of vindication;

In full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case, the following facts are substantiated.

A. The applicant Y is a major shareholder and representative director of the applicant corporation X Heavy Industries (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant corporation"), and the respondent is a member of the National Metal Trade Union**** Chapter X Heavy Heavy Industries Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Labor Union of this case") to which the employees of the applicant company belong.

B. The respondent A, B, and C were responsible for committing suicide on December 21, 2012 by the union members S under the labor union of this case on the ground that they were responsible for the applicant’s suicide on January 9, 2013, from 07:00 to 10:30 on the same day from January 9, 2013 to 0:0 on the same day. The respondent set up a banner with the phrases as shown in the attached Table 4 before the above applicant’s house and the pictures and notes of the networkS, and carried out one person’s demonstration.

C. Respondent A, B, and C, even after the applicant’s attendance time around the time of the applicant’s attendance, set up a stude vehicle with the banner with the words written in attached Form 5, a photo of the network S, and a studio at a place away from 20 to 30 meters away from the above applicant’s house, and one person’s demonstration was conducted by attaching two persons together with the applicant’s photo and strawet with the network S’s sign, or with the phrase written in attached Form 6 attached hereto.

2. Determination as to the respondent A, B, and C

(a) An act of ordering prohibition;

The freedom of assembly, demonstration, and expression should be guaranteed as much as possible as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but such fundamental rights shall not infringe on the honor, credit, or rights of others.

(2) have limitations.

In this case, there is a reason to consider the motive that the respondent has caused the same act as the above alleged fact in the process of notifying the applicant of the illegality of a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against layoff and labor union union members in relation to the death of the union members.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the details, methods, time, frequency, etc. of the respondent as revealed in the purport of the whole records and examination, it is deemed that the respondent's act of obstructing the applicant from working together with at least two persons for the purpose of interfering with demonstration or peace in housing or privacy within a radius of 100 meters from the site of the Y's residential building site, and obstructing the applicant from working at work by obstructing the operation of the above applicant or the vehicle on board, and posting the banner or the ticket containing the contents that slander the above applicant, goes beyond the limit of the freedom of assembly, demonstration and expression, and infringing on the above applicant's reputation, physical freedom, or privacy. In addition, the respondent's act of preventing the applicant from working at work by obstructing the passage of the Y or the operation of the on-board vehicle is an act that lacks social reasonableness as it interferes with the applicant's business.

In light of these circumstances, at least two Respondents among the Respondents for the shift of one person demonstration and the driving of vehicles, etc., if the Respondents' behavior attitudes, such as coming from the office of the Respondents, the Respondents' behavior attitude is considered as a provisional disposition against the Respondents at the present point, the Claimants' right to be preserved and the need for preservation is recognized.

The applicants also seek indirect compulsory enforcement in preparation for the violation of the duty of disclosure and respondent, but the submitted data alone is insufficient to vindicate the necessity of disclosure and indirect compulsory enforcement in order to secure the effectiveness of provisional disposition. Therefore, this part of the petition is not accepted (if the respondent does an act contrary to it despite the decision of provisional disposition of this case, it may seek indirect compulsory enforcement by a separate application).

B. The dismissed part of the applicants sought a prohibition of conduct within 500 meters from the Y's house and its radius. However, the materials submitted by the applicants alone are not enough to deem that the respondent either entered the Y house and committed or was likely to commit the above act, and the respondent can prevent the infringement of the applicants' rights by prohibiting the above applicants from committing an act within 100 meters in radius from the above applicants' residence. Thus, this part of the applicants' assertion is not accepted.

Furthermore, in addition to each act listed in the attached list 2, 3, 5, and 8 (excluding the part cited in paragraph (3) of the attached list 2) of the attached list 3, the applicant also sought the prohibition of each act listed in the attached list 2, 3, 5, and 8 (excluding the part cited in paragraph (3) of the attached list 2). However, the materials submitted by the respondent alone cannot be acknowledged to have either the respondent or it is sufficient for the respondent to have committed any act listed in the attached list 2, 3, 6, and 8 (excluding the part cited in paragraph (3) of the attached list 2 of the attached list 3.

3. Determination on remaining respondents

Although the applicants seek the prohibition of each act listed in the separate sheet 3 against the rest of the respondent, it cannot be found that the respondent committed or likely to commit each act listed in the same list only with the materials submitted, and in particular, each act listed in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the same list cannot be deemed to have been specified to the extent that the scope of execution is possible, so the applicants' assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Respondent A, B, and C's applications are accepted within the scope of the above recognition with merit, and the remainder of the above Respondents and the remaining Respondents' applications are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park hee-hee

Judges Park Jong-dae

LOOOOG LOOG

A person shall be appointed.