Articles 1, 2, and 14(1) of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions; Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions; Articles 2 subparag. 4(d) and 12(3) of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Amended by Act No. 12630, May 20, 2014); Article 9(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Articles 2(1)1 and 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 11(1), 31(6), 33, 37(2), and 75 of the Constitution; Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations; Article 4(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act

National Teachers' Union (Law Firm So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Employment and Labor (the Government Legal Service and two others, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

April 29, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On October 24, 2013, the defendant revoked the notification disposition of foreign trade union notification against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to improve the working conditions of school personnel, improve the social and economic status of school personnel, and improve the educational environment and educational system, as a trade union established with national, public, and private school teachers as its members under the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers’ Labor Unions (hereinafter “School Teachers’ Labor Unions Act”).

B. The Plaintiff amended the Code on June 27, 199 and newly established Article 5 of the Addenda to the following (hereinafter “instant provision”) (However, the Plaintiff did not exclude the qualifications of teachers employed since its establishment on May 28, 1989).

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6 (1) of the Regulations, a member who has been unfairly dismissed may become a member of the board of directors. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6 (1) of the Regulations, a member who has not been reinstated and a member who has been unfairly dismissed after the enforcement date of the previous Regulations shall maintain the qualification of a member of the board of directors.

C. On July 1, 1999, the Plaintiff reported the establishment of the Government Organization Act (amended by Act No. 10339, Jun. 4, 2010; hereinafter “the Minister of Labor”) to the Minister of Labor (hereinafter “Defendant”) and issued a certificate of report on the establishment of the following day. The rules submitted at the time of reporting the establishment were not included therein.

D. On March 31, 2010, the Defendant issued an order to correct the instant provisions, etc. until May 31, 2010 (hereinafter “instant corrective order”). The Plaintiff requested on April 31, 2010 to extend the deadline for the implementation of the corrective order on April 31, 2010 to August 2010, on the grounds that not only did the Labor Relations Commission make an application for remedy against unfair labor practices due to the loss of the status of the teacher, but also was in violation of Article 2 of the Teachers’ Union Act by stipulating that the member’s qualification is maintained even during the process of a lawsuit related to dismissal after the reexamination of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Defendant extended the deadline for the implementation of the corrective order on April 29, 2010 by August 31, 2010.

E. On June 29, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation by asserting that the corrective order issued on March 31, 2010 was unlawful. On November 31, 2010, the said court revoked the part related to Article 55(4) of the Plaintiff’s Code and dismissed the remainder of the claim, including the instant provision. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu43725, but dismissed on September 9, 201. The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2011Du24231, but was appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2011Du24231, January 12, 2012.

F. The Plaintiff’s amendment of the Code on August 14, 2010, while the lawsuit as described in the foregoing paragraph (e) was pending, deleted Article 5(1) of the Addenda, and revised Article 5(2) of the Addenda to the same effect that “any member who was unfairly dismissed may become a member of a nationwide kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and high school, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Code.” (The foregoing provision was amended on August 14, 2010, but the provision of this case was revised on August 14, 2010, but it was difficult to view that there was a difference between the provision of this case and the content thereof, and there was no dispute as to the difference between the parties. Accordingly, the instant provision and the amended on August 14, 2010, without distinguishing the provisions of this case for convenience, are all referred to as “the provision of this case”).

G. On September 17, 2012, the Defendant again ordered the Plaintiff to rectify the instant provision by October 18, 2012, on the same ground as the corrective order issued on March 31, 2010. The Plaintiff requested that the said period be extended by March 15, 2013, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request on October 18, 2012.

H. On September 23, 2013, the Defendant, on the same grounds as the corrective order issued on March 31, 2010, ordered the Plaintiff to rectify the instant provision and take measures to ensure that the dismissed teachers do not join the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the corrective order issued on September 23, 2013”) by October 23, 2013. The corrective order issued on September 23, 2013, stated that the Plaintiff would not be deemed a trade union under the Teachers’ Labor Union Act if the result of correction is not reported within the corrective period.

(i) However, the Plaintiff failed to comply with the corrective order issued on September 23, 2013, and accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would not be deemed a trade union under the Teachers' Unions Act (hereinafter “instant notification”) on October 24, 2013 pursuant to Article 14 of the Teachers' Unions Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 2 Subparag. 4(d) of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Amended by Act No. 12630, May 20, 2014); Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc.

(j) On October 25, 2013, the Minister of Education sent a document to the Office of Education of a City/Do (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Office of Education”) with the title “the notification of extinction of the grounds for temporary retirement and the request for cooperation in the implementation of follow-up measures following the notification of temporary retirement.” The main contents are as follows.

In relation to the notification of this case 2. A. The defendant notified the plaintiff to the Ministry of Education as a trade union prescribed by the Teachers' Labor Union Act, the plaintiff would lose his status and authority as a trade union, such as the name of the trade union, use of the trade union, collective bargaining, etc. 3. Therefore, the City/Do Office of Education will immediately cancel the permission of the full-time officer of the trade union and implement follow-up measures as follows, and notify the Ministry of Education by December 2, 2013 in accordance with the form where the status of the implementation of follow-up measures by each agency is attached to the status of the full-time officer of the trade union. - (a) The cancellation of the permission of the full-time officer of the trade union and the issuance of the office subsidies to the plaintiff; (d) the request for the withdrawal of the office and the return of the office subsidies to the plaintiff; (e) the validity of the previous collective agreement is invalidated after October 24, 2013; (e) the suspension of collective bargaining benefits in progress.

(k) Meanwhile, the number of teachers who are dismissed as the Plaintiff’s members is nine. The name of the dismissed teacher, the duties in charge at present, the date of retirement, and the reasons for retirement are as follows.

On November 29, 2012, which is the reason for retirement from office as of the date of retirement of Nonparty 1 1 ○○○○○○, and the representative of △△△ Headquarters, as of the title contained in the main text, was sentenced to conviction on November 29, 2012, which is the reason for the violation of the Local Education Autonomy Act, etc., and automatically retired from office pursuant to Article 43-2 of the Public Educational Officials Act, the head of 2, 3, and 4, 3, and 4, and 5, the head of 4, 4, and 5, and 6, the head of 5, and 7, 11, 204, the head of 2, 8, 108, the head of 2, 10, the head of 4, 208, the head of 2, 100, the head of 2, 2009, and the head of 2,000,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 47, Gap evidence 48, Eul evidence 7 through 19 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's main defense

1) Disposition

The Plaintiff’s notification of this case does not lose the status of a trade union under the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations of Teachers, but permits the entry of a dismissed teacher into a trade union pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 14(1), and the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers, which promptly results in the effect that the Plaintiff does not regard the Plaintiff as a trade union under the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations of Teachers. Accordingly, the notification of this case constitutes notification of the fact or concept that the Plaintiff simply confirms that the effect of not deeming the Plaintiff

As the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a false rule that does not include the instant provision while reporting the establishment of a trade union on July 1, 1999, the Defendant’s act of accepting the report on the establishment of a trade union against the Plaintiff is serious and obvious and invalid. The instant notification is merely a notification of the concept simply confirming the invalid acceptance.

Therefore, the instant notification cannot be deemed an administrative disposition, and thus, the instant lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant notification is unlawful.

2) Benefits of action

The Plaintiff was not a trade union under the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act by allowing the Plaintiff to join the teachers dismissed from the time of establishment report on July 1, 1999. Even if the instant notification is revoked, the Plaintiff does not have any influence on whether the Plaintiff is a trade union under the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act, and thus, there is no benefit to seek the cancellation of the instant notification. The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it

(b) Markets:

The issue of whether an administrative disposition is deemed an administrative disposition cannot be determined abstract, general, and in specific cases, an administrative disposition is an act that directly affects the rights and obligations of the people as an enforcement of law with regard to a specific fact conducted by an administrative agency as a public authority. In light of the contents and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and whether such an act meets the requirements of establishment or validity as an administrative disposition to a certain extent in the subject, content, form, procedure, etc. of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, substantial relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested parties such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law and the attitude of interested parties related to the pertinent act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du4397, Jun. 14, 2007, etc.).

The notice of this case is a notification to the Trade Union of Teachers established under the Teachers' Unions Act pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Teachers' Unions Act, Article 12(3) of the Trade Union Act, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to the effect that, in the event a cause falling under the items of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act occurs, it is demanded to correct the above cause and the non-compliance with the corrective order shall not be deemed as a trade union under the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. In light of the above reasons and procedures such as the demand for correction

In full view of the aforementioned facts and evidence, the Defendant ordered the Office of Education to take legal measures against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s status and authority as a labor union under the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act was lost by providing the Plaintiff with the instant notice to the City/Do Office of Education. Since the instant notice, the Plaintiff’s use of the name of the labor union is practically difficult (Article 7(3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). The Plaintiff’s full-time officer’s use of the name of the labor union is practically difficult (Article 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). It is likely that the Plaintiff’s collective bargaining and collective agreement formation authority recognized by the teachers’ union under the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act might not be practically recognized (Article 6 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). In light of Article 6(1) and Article 5(1) of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act prohibiting the Plaintiff from exercising its authority under the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it is unreasonable to give notice to the Plaintiff of the instant unstable status under the Private School Act.

In addition, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire arguments, are as follows: (a) if the defendant did not report the result of correction within the corrective period of September 23, 2013, the corrective order issued by the defendant against the plaintiff on September 23, 2013, it is known that it does not constitute a trade union under the Teachers' Unions Act; (b) if the plaintiff did not make correction pursuant to the corrective order issued on September 23, 2013, the defendant notified the plaintiff under his own name that he does not regard the plaintiff as a trade union under the Teachers' Unions Act; and (c) since the written notification is indicated outside the name of the defendant and the title of the document does not be regarded as a trade union, the plaintiff, the party to the instant notification, can be recognized that the written notification of this case, only with the notice of this case, is objectively disadvantageous to the people; and (d) the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, has a high possibility of recognizing it as an administrative disposition under the Teachers' Unions Act.

Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant notice constitutes an administrative disposition that directly affects the rights and obligations held by the Plaintiff as a trade union. Therefore, the instant notice is subject to appeal litigation, and the Plaintiff is also interested in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the instant notice.

Therefore, all of the defendant's defenses are without merit.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant notification

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to Article 2 of the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act

A) Violation of the right to organize under the Constitution (Articles 33 and 37(2) of the Constitution), violation of the status of teacher and legalism (Article 31(6) of the Constitution)

According to Article 2 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers, the dismissed teacher cannot join a trade union even if the court is recognized as unfair labor practice after the review decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. A fixed-term teacher is required to repeat the admission and withdrawal from a trade union every six months, even after dismissal, there is no way to join a trade union other than the trade union of the teacher. A teacher at a private school has three labor rights pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Constitution as in general private enterprise workers. The Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Private School Teachers is deprived of the three labor rights of the teacher at a private school without constitutional basis, and a teacher forced withdrawal from a trade union against his/her will merely because he/she was dismissed. Considering that Article 2 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers is in violation of the principle of excessive prohibition (Article 33), the right to organize (Article 15) of the Constitution, and the right to pursue happiness (Article 10) of the Constitution).

In addition, Article 31(6) of the Constitution provides for the enhancement of the autonomy and expertise of teachers by guaranteeing the status of teachers by law, and Article 2 of the Teachers' Labor Union Act provides for the deprivation of the three labor rights of the dismissed teachers so that the status of teachers is unstable, thereby violating the principle of the status of teachers.

B) Violation of the principle of equality (Article 11(1) of the Constitution)

The industrial, occupational, and regional trade unions (hereinafter referred to as “elementary-company-based trade unions”) may freely join dismissed workers, and by nature, it is against the labor unions of teachers similar to the primary-company-based trade unions that make it impossible to join teachers, without any reasonable grounds. Moreover, Article 2 of the Teachers’ Unions Act discriminates against fixed-term teachers and regular teachers without reasonable grounds, as fixed-term teachers continue to join and withdraw from trade unions. Therefore, Article 2 of the Teachers’ Unions Act violates the principle of equality under the Constitution.

2) As to Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

According to Article 10(3)1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, an administrative agency may return an establishment report to a trade union during its establishment in cases falling under any of the items of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Under Article 12(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, an administrative agency shall demand supplementation of the establishment report or bylaws within a specified period not exceeding 20 days, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, in cases where the establishment report or bylaws need to be supplemented due to omission of the matters to be stated. Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides the procedures for the demand for supplementation as prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act upon delegation by Article 12(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. However, with respect to a trade union already established, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act only imposes a fine even if it refuses to comply with the regulations by respecting the legal relation formed at king

In addition, the order to dissolve an administrative agency against a trade union, which violated the right to organize, etc. under the Constitution, was also stipulated in the former Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 3966 of Nov. 28, 1987, hereinafter the same), and was deleted on November 28, 1987. However, the notice of this case is in essence infringed upon the right to organize, etc. under the Constitution of the trade union, such as the dispersion order, subject, object, basis, and legal effect as stipulated in the former Trade Union Act, but is different from the dispersion order stipulated in the Roman Act.

Therefore, Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act violates the principle of statutory reservation by infringing the constitutional right to organize on trade unions without delegation of law, and is unconstitutional by deviating from the limit of delegated legislation under Article 75 of the Constitution, so the notification of this case is invalid.

3) As to the violation of Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulation

Pursuant to Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulation, an administrative agency may not limit the rights of the people or impose obligations on the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s corrective order and the instant notification against the Plaintiff on September 23, 2013 are administrative regulations that restrict the Plaintiff’s rights and impose obligations on the Plaintiff, and there is no ground for law in the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Therefore, the corrective order and the instant notification made on September 23, 2013 constitute administrative regulations that restrict the Plaintiff’s rights and impose obligations on the Plaintiff without any ground under the Act, and thus, are null and void in violation of Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulation (the instant notification was made on the premise of the corrective order made on September 23, 2013, and thus, the instant notification that succeeded to the defect is null and void in this point).

4) As to the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act

The proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates the passive requirements that should not be met by a trade union. However, the above provision is merely an exemplary provision of the affirmative requirements stipulated in the main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and thus, it cannot be seen as a trade union under the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, as long as the Plaintiff formally allowed a person who is not a teacher to join a trade union, even if the Plaintiff satisfies the passive requirements of Article

However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff was a teacher for about 14 years and operated independently as the principal agent, the Plaintiff’s union members voluntarily participated in voting and refused to take corrective measures in accordance with the principle of majority, and the Plaintiff’s union members are only nine members, even if they meet the passive requirements under Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it does not infringe on the Plaintiff’s autonomy, and therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements under Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

5) Violation of the principle of proportionality

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff acted as a legitimate teachers' trade union for about 14 years, the number of teachers dismissed among about 60,000 members of the Plaintiff, is only nine, and the number of teachers dismissed among the 12,788 elected workers within the Plaintiff is only one chief of the △ branch's senior site, and even if the dismissed teachers are admitted as the Plaintiff members, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff's autonomy has been infringed or is likely to be infringed, the instant notification was excessively harsh to the Plaintiff and abused discretion.

6) Violation of the principle of trust protection.

From June 3, 1998 to August 3, 1999, the Labor-Management and Labor-Government Committee (amended by Act No. 8297 of Jan. 26, 2007, the Act on Economic and Social Development and Labor-Management Affairs Committee was changed to “the Committee on Economic and Social Development”; hereinafter referred to as “the Committee on Economic and Social Development”) agreed to allow the dismissed teachers to join a trade union. In other words, if the legislation that recognizes the first-company labor union of the unemployed is made, the dismissed teachers also agreed to allow the teachers to join the trade union. Accordingly, since the Supreme Court sentenced to the purport that allowing the teachers to join the first-company labor union of unemployed workers around 2004, the dismissed teachers also need to be able to join the trade union. As such, it did not require the Plaintiff to be deprived of the Plaintiff’s legal status for the reason that the Defendant was deprived of the Plaintiff.

7) Violation of the forfeited doctrine, etc.

Although the Defendant knew the fact that the provision of this case was included in the Plaintiff’s regulations and the teacher dismissed from the Plaintiff’s membership before 9 to 3 years from the notification of this case, and notified this case to the Plaintiff, it was unlawful by violating the principle of forfeiture of rights and infringing on the principles of trust protection and legal stability.

8) As to the defendant's assertion of rejection of the ex post facto establishment report

The defendant asserts that, on July 1, 1999, the plaintiff submitted a false rule that does not include the provision of this case when reporting the establishment of the defendant on July 1, 1999, so the notification of this case is lawful without any legal basis as it constitutes a return of post-establishment notification corresponding to the cancellation or withdrawal of the lecture. However, this is not permissible because the plaintiff asserts a reason different from the reason for the disposition of the notification of this case. In addition, since the plaintiff held a National Congress on June 27, 1999 and did not include the provision of this case when amending the rule, the plaintiff did not submit a false rule to the defendant on July 1, 199.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

1) Determination as to whether Article 2 of the Teachers’ Labor Unions Act is unconstitutional

A) Violation of the right to organize under the Constitution (Articles 33 and 37(2) of the Constitution), violation of the status of teacher and legalism (Article 31(6) of the Constitution)

Pursuant to Article 2 of the Act on the Trade Union of Teachers, a teacher prescribed by the Act on the Trade Union of Teachers means a teacher prescribed by Article 19 (1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education: Provided, That a dismissed person who has filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the Labor Relations Commission shall be deemed a teacher under the Act on the Trade Union of Teachers until the Central Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on review thereof. Therefore, pursuant to the above provision of the Act, only a teacher in office and a person dismissed who has filed an application for remedy for unfair labor practices with the Labor Relations Commission (However, he/she may join a trade union until the Central Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on review thereof) may join a trade union established under the Act on the Trade Union of Teachers, and any other dismissed teacher shall not join a trade union. As such, it is examined whether the right to organize, etc. under Article 2 of the Act on the Trade Union of Teachers or a trade union against which the qualification to join a trade union is limited, and whether

Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) (main sentence) of the Trade Union Act provides that the Trade Union may be deemed justifiable on the ground that it might lose its independence and independence by allowing workers to join the trade union who are not its main agent. In addition, in the case of a company-level trade union, it may join an enterprise if the worker is employed. However, in the case of an original company-level trade union which does not require any subordinate relationship to a specific employer from its original date, it may join as long as it is necessary to guarantee three labor rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du8568, Feb. 27, 2004). Considering that Article 2 subparag. 4 (main sentence) of the Trade Union Act provides that if an employer is permitted to leave the trade union only for those who actually provide labor, it is more likely that the employer would dismiss the worker who will not be a member of the trade union, and thus, it is more likely that the worker would be subject to dismissal for a certain period of time until the Labor Relations Commission determines that the dismissal of the worker would be an unfair labor practice.

Furthermore, we examine the cases of teachers. Article 31(6) of the Constitution, which provides a legal principle of teacher status, does not simply provide for the purpose of guaranteeing the rights and interests of teachers or for the purpose of protecting the status of teachers from unfair infringement by administrative power, but also for the purpose of effectively guaranteeing the fundamental rights of teachers to receive citizens’ education. Accordingly, the law enacted based on the above provision of the Constitution, which restricts the fundamental rights of teachers, such as guaranteeing the status of teachers and guaranteeing the economic and social status of teachers, as well as prohibiting acts that are likely to undermine the rights of teachers to receive national education, may also include matters that fall under the rights of teachers, such as guaranteeing the status of teachers, economic and social status of teachers, etc. In addition, the law enacted based on the above provision of the Constitution, which restricts the fundamental rights of teachers, such as restricting the basic rights of teachers, such as guaranteeing the rights of teachers, is more appropriate than the general rights of teachers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Hun-Ga16, supra.).

In addition, given that private school teachers are performing the same duties as those of national and public school teachers, and Article 55(1) of the Private School Act provides that the provisions concerning teachers of national and public schools shall apply mutatis mutandis to the duties of private school teachers. Therefore, in light of the special characteristics of teacher status such as the guarantee of status and status similar to those of national and public school teachers, autonomy and expertise of teacher duties, and structural characteristics of the educational system, even if the right to organize, etc. under the Constitution of private school teachers and national and public school teachers are equally restricted, the right to organize of private school teachers cannot be deemed as fundamentally infringed.

As such, Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission Act provides that a person who has applied for remedy from unfair labor practices to the Labor Relations Commission among teachers employed or dismissed as well as teachers like those of Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission (However, he/she may join a trade union until the National Labor Relations Commission makes a decision on review) may join the trade union. Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission applies to general workers does not infringe the workers’ right to organize under the Constitution. As seen earlier, the Act enacted pursuant to Article 31(6) of the Constitution that provides the legal principle on the status of teachers can also provide for matters that limit the fundamental rights of teachers. Unlike the general workers in light of the content of their duties, teachers are emphasized in particular, and the legislators are able to more specially regulate teachers than the general workers in relation to the right to organize of teachers or the labor union. Furthermore, if the autonomy and independence of teachers are damaged, they are able to receive more permanent regulations than the Act on education and development of teachers.

Therefore, Article 2 of the Teachers' Unions Act is difficult to view that the constitutional right to organize, the right to choose a teacher's occupation and the right to pursue happiness are essentially infringed, and it does not violate the principle of teacher's status and legalism.

B) Violation of the principle of equality (Article 11(1) of the Constitution)

As long as it is necessary to guarantee three labor rights to a person who is temporarily unemployed or who is seeking to find a job for a primary-corporate unit trade union, a trade union may join as long as it is necessary to guarantee three labor rights. However, in light of the characteristics of teachers and teachers’ unions as seen earlier, even if a trade union of teachers is established only on a Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Do, Special Self-Governing Province, or national unit pursuant to Article 4 of the Teachers’ Labor Union Act, it is reasonable to deem

In addition, Article 2 of the Teachers' Unions Act does not deal with fixed-term teachers and regular teachers differently, and if it is allowed to join a trade union even after the contract is terminated, it would result in guaranteeing the right to organize, etc. of fixed-term teachers, rather than for regular teachers.

Therefore, Article 2 of the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations of Teachers does not violate the principle of equality under the Constitution, since it is not deemed that a teacher's union and primary business-level union, fixed-term teachers and regular teachers have treated differently without reasonable grounds.

2) Determination as to whether Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is unconstitutional

Article 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "workers may freely organize a trade union or join it: Provided, That public officials and teachers shall be determined by a separate Act, and accordingly, the Act on the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment of Teachers and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act was enacted with respect to the organization and joining of a trade union of teachers (see Article 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). Article 14 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 9 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to matters that are not prescribed by the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act to the trade union and labor relations

Accordingly, Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act that applies to the Plaintiff who is a trade union of a teacher provides that “Where a report on establishment of a trade union falls under any of the following subparagraphs pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, an administrative agency shall demand supplementation.” Article 9(1)1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that “Where a report on establishment of a trade union is not accompanied by the rules, or there is any omission or false fact in the matters to be stated in the report or bylaws,” but Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not expressly provide that “if a ground for rejection of a report on establishment falling under Article 12(3)1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act after the receipt of a certificate of establishment report arises, an administrative agency shall demand correction within a fixed period of 30 days, and if the report is not implemented within that period, it shall not be deemed a trade union under this Act for the relevant trade union.” Therefore, this paper examines the limit of delegation of the Act.

Article 75 of the Constitution provides that “The President may issue Presidential Decrees with regard to matters specifically delegated by Acts and subordinate statutes and matters necessary for enforcing Acts.” Its purport is not that of the enactment of all Presidential Decrees, but that of the enactment of Acts, the President may enact Presidential Decrees with regard to the specific methods, procedures, etc. for the enforcement of Acts, except where the Constitution, such as the restriction on fundamental rights of the people, etc., provides that only the Act shall be governed by Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du10432, Jan. 11, 2007). However, the execution order that an administrative agency enacted by general authority can only provide detailed matters necessary for real enforcement within the scope prescribed by superior Acts and subordinate statutes, and it cannot be amended or supplemented the contents of rights and duties of individuals prescribed by superior Acts and subordinate statutes, or new provisions that are not prescribed by superior Acts and subordinate statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da72076, Jul. 5, 201202).

Article 12(3) and 12 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provide that an administrative agency shall return an establishment report in cases where a trade union intended to establish falls under any of the items of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. The main text of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that “an organization or associated organization organized independently by workers as its principal agent for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions and enhancing the economic and social status of workers,” and the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that “However, it shall not be deemed a trade union in cases falling under any of the following items.” Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that “Where a dismissed person has applied for relief from unfair labor practices to the Labor Relations Commission, an administrative agency shall not be construed as a person other than a worker until the decision for review is made by the National Labor Relations Commission.” In addition, Article 21(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act provides that an administrative agency may order rectification thereof.

The Plaintiff’s proviso to Article 2 subparag. 4, proviso to Article 2 subparag. 4, and each item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act provides that if a trade union falls under any of the items of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the same Act, the effect that it is not deemed a trade union pursuant to the proviso to Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act is immediately generated, and it is difficult to deem that the union’s right to organize, etc. is not regarded as a trade union pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act, the basic requirements for restriction on the status of a trade union can be deemed as stipulated in the Labor Union Act established by the National Assembly. In light of the proviso to Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act’s proviso to Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same Act’s proviso to Article 3 of the same Act’s proviso to the same Act’s proviso to the same Article, it is difficult to ensure that a trade union already established has an opportunity to rectify the union’s establishment report and operation of the Trade Union Act.

3) Determination on violation of Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulation

Article 4(1) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulations provides that regulations shall be based on the relevant Act, and Article 4(2) of the same Act provides that “The regulations shall be directly prescribed by the relevant Act, but the details of the regulations may be prescribed by Presidential Decree, Ordinance of the Prime Minister, Ordinance of the Prime Minister, Ordinance, or Municipal Ordinance or Municipal Ordinance or Municipal Ordinance or Municipal Ordinance as delegated by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes with a specific scope.” Article 4(3) of the same Act provides that “Administrative agencies shall not restrict the rights of citizens or impose duties on citizens by regulations not based on the relevant Acts.” According to each of the above provisions, matters restricting the rights of citizens or imposing duties on citizens shall be delegated by the relevant Acts, and the Enforcement Decree that limits the rights of citizens or imposes duties on citizens without delegation by the relevant Acts shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du19270, Nov. 22, 2012, etc.).

In this case, the corrective order issued on September 23, 2013 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is based on Articles 21(1) and 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which apply to the Plaintiff who is a trade union of a teacher, pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and is not in violation of Article 4(3) of the Framework Act on Administrative Regulation, since there are legal grounds under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

In addition, as seen in the above 2nd paragraph, the notice of this case is based on Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, which applies to the plaintiff who is a trade union of a teacher pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act merely notifies that the effect which is not regarded as a trade union pursuant to the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act has occurred within the scope of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and it cannot be deemed that it goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation under the Constitution, since it is difficult to see that a new law has been prescribed in addition to the matters stipulated in the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Therefore, Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not deviate from the limit of delegated legislation under the Constitution.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4) Determination as to whether the requirements under the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act are satisfied

It conforms to the language and text of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act to interpret that a trade union is not deemed a trade union according to the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act regardless of whether the trade union has substantial autonomy when a cause falling under any item of Article 2 subparag. 4

According to Article 12(3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, an administrative agency shall return an establishment report in cases falling under any item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. As such, an administrative agency may examine whether a trade union falls under any item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and return an establishment report to a trade union corresponding thereto. The main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides the affirmative requirements for becoming a trade union, and the proviso and each item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provide the passive requirements for which a trade union cannot become a trade union. In light of the above, it cannot be deemed that Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that

In addition, Article 2 subparag. 4(b) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "where the main part of expenses is subsidized by the employer," subparagraph (c) provides that "if the purpose is only mutual aid, salvage and other welfare business," (e) provides that "if the purpose is to mainly engage in a political activity is not deemed a trade union," subparagraph (b), (c), and (e) of Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not immediately meet the requirements of autonomy and independence that the trade union under the main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 4(b), (c), and (e) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act must meet the requirements of autonomy and independence that the trade union should meet. Therefore, in cases falling under subparagraph 4(b), (e) of Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it is difficult to interpret that Article 2 subparag. 4(a), (d), (c), (c), and (e) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act does not meet the requirements of autonomy and independence of the trade union.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the case falling under each item of Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is not deemed a trade union in accordance with the proviso of Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any further review.

5) Determination as to whether the principle of proportionality has been violated

Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that “Where a reason for returning a report on establishment that falls under Article 12(3)1 of the Act arises after a trade union was issued a certificate of report on establishment, an administrative agency shall request the trade union to correct it within a given period of 30 days and, if the union fails to comply with the request within such period, notify the trade union of the fact that it does not be deemed a trade union under this Act.” If the trade union satisfies the requirements of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the effect falling

In light of the legislative form, structure, or language of Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the effect of the proviso of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, etc., if a trade union falls under the requirements of each item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, the Defendant’s notification that it is not deemed a trade union pursuant to Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the notification of this case is contrary to the principle of proportionality on the premise that it is a discretionary act is without merit.

In light of the above facts and the purport of the argument as a whole, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the plaintiff's report on July 1, 199, by submitting a false rule that is not included in the provision of this case, and on March 31, 2010, the defendant ordered correction of the provision of this case to the plaintiff on March 31, 2010, 2010, 310. The above court rejected the plaintiff's claim as to the provision of this case from the above corrective order of November 5, 2010, and the plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order of this case since it did not constitute a violation of the provision of this case since it had been acknowledged that the non-party 1 had the provision of this case and the evidence of this case as a whole, the plaintiff could not be seen as being a member of the non-party 2, 2010Nu43725) and the plaintiff's appeal (Seoul High Court No. 2010, Dec. 12, 2012).

6) Determination as to whether the principle of trust protection has been violated

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 40, Gap evidence No. 41, and Gap evidence No. 44, and the overall purport of the arguments, the 10th session of the Standing Committee of the Labor-Management and Labor Relations Commission held on Nov. 13, 1998 at the 10th session of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee held on Nov. 13, 1998 that if the legislation recognizing the participation of the unemployed in the primary company unit, the dismissed teacher is naturally allowed to join the labor union, and the dismissed teacher has been discussed to the effect that it is allowed to join the labor union. On Oct. 2013, 2013, the Labor-Management and Labor Relations Commission stated that "the 2nd session of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the Standing Committee of the People's Republic of Korea's Republic of Korea.

However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and evidence, it cannot be deemed that the person who attended the Standing Committee of the Labor-Management and Labor Relations Commission as a governmental expert member at the Standing Committee of the above Committee cannot be deemed to have the legislative authority to recognize teachers to join the labor union. If the legislative member at the Standing Committee of the Labor-Management and Labor Relations Commission did not allow teachers to join the labor union without any conditions, it is merely a statement that the dismissed teachers should be allowed to join the labor union, and if the legislative member at the Standing Committee of the above Standing Committee of the Labor-Management and Labor Relations Commission discussed to the effect that they are allowed to join the labor union, it is difficult to deem that the dismissed teachers should be allowed to join the labor union as a matter of course. The statement made by the Standing Committee of the above Labor-Management and Labor Relations Commission is merely a discussion about the legislation that recognizes teachers to join the labor union, and it is difficult to recognize that the above legislative member is not sufficient to recognize the above legislative member's participation in the labor union in light of the opinion that it is difficult to recognize the above 10th of the labor union.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion also has no reason to do so without further review.

7) Determination as to whether a violation of the forfeited law, etc.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant had known the fact that the provisions of this case were included in the plaintiff's regulations and the teacher dismissed from the plaintiff's membership for 9 to 3 years from the notification of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the above assertion by the plaintiff is without merit without any further review.

In light of the following circumstances, even if the Defendant was aware of such facts prior to a considerable period of time, the Plaintiff’s establishment report was made on July 1, 1999 by submitting false rules that are not included in the provision of this case to the Defendant on June 27, 199, although the Plaintiff enacted the provision of this case by amending the provision of this case on June 27, 199, and the Plaintiff did not exclude the dismissed teachers from the union members. If the Plaintiff submitted the provision of this case to the Defendant on July 1, 1999 and reported establishment, it would be deemed that the Defendant would have returned the report on establishment on the ground of the provision of this case to the Defendant, and it is difficult to deem that there was any justifiable reason to believe that the Defendant would not notify the Plaintiff of this case, and thus, the notification of this case does not violate the legal principles of forfeiture or protection of trust or legal stability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 207Nu78579, Apr. 27, 1988).

On June 27, 199, the plaintiff passed a resolution of the rules that do not include the provision of this case at the National Assembly of Representatives, and submitted the rules that are not included in the provision of this case to the defendant on July 1, 1999. However, on June 27, 1999, the plaintiff decided to delegate the amendment of minor provisions to the enforcement department, and the enforcement department was newly established after July 1, 1999. Thus, on July 1, 1999, the plaintiff asserted that the report of establishment was not submitted with false rules.

According to the evidence evidence No. 36, the data on the National Representatives' 36 held on June 27, 199 (Evidence No. 36-1) contains the proposal for the amendment of the above provision. The amendment of the provision of this case does not include the provision of this case, and the minutes of the National Representatives' Meeting held on June 27, 199 (Evidence No. 36-2) states that "the miscellaneous and minor provisions shall be delegated to the executive department" as the matters concerning the amendment of the provision of this case is not stated, and it can be recognized that the above minutes contain the statement that "one teacher among the executive officers shall be recognized under the current labor law," and that "the reported matters shall be excluded."

However, considering the above circumstances and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, i.e., whether the dismissed teacher is included in the union members or not is related to the qualification of union members and may affect the report of establishment, and thus, such provision cannot be seen as constituting a “small regulation” (it is difficult to deem that the provision regarding the time limit for re-admission of the person who was expelled by disciplinary action according to the minutes of the National Assembly on June 27, 199). The Plaintiff’s provision on August 29, 2009 (No. 10 evidence) stating that the supplementary provision included in the above provision was amended on June 27, 199, and it is reasonable to view that the above provision was not included in the revised provision on June 27, 199 to the effect that it was not reasonable to recognize that the provision of this case was included in the revised provision on the 9th anniversary of the fact that it was later delegated to the enforcement department on June 27, 199.

8) Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion on the return of the defendant's ex post facto establishment report

As seen earlier, as long as the instant notification is lawful pursuant to Article 14 of the Teachers’ Labor Union Act, Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the proviso to Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 2 subparag. 4 of the same Act, Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the same Act, and Article 9(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., whether the instant notification

4. Conclusion

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

Judges anti-government (Presiding Justice) Kim Yong-Uk Kim Jong-hwan