1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

Details of the disposition

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of some of the contents as follows. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the first instance judgment Nos. 8 and 9 are as follows: “A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates various kinds of internal combustion engine parts manufacturing and sales business, and the intervenor is a worker who works as a production worker at the Youngdong Factory of the Plaintiff company.”

Part II of the first instance judgment, “A. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”) is working in the Plaintiff,” and Article 9 of the first instance judgment, “A. The Intervenor is working in the Plaintiff.”

Part 2 of the first instance judgment, Part 16 of the 16th sentence "B" shall be written as "C.", and part 3 of the 5th sentence "C." shall be written as "D."

It shall be as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the instant disposition was made by the Plaintiff Company prior to the beginning of 2012, and there was no fact that the Intervenor returned to the Plaintiff Company after June 2013. Thus, in light of the fact that the instant injury and disease occurred at the time of termination of the Plaintiff Company’s unfair labor practice or around 2015, it cannot be deemed that the main stress, which appears to have influenced the present injury and the present injury and disease, was derived from the Plaintiff Company’s or the Intervenor’s work performed by the Plaintiff Company.

Rather, the injury and disease of this case was caused by continuous illegal trade union activities after the trade union to which the intervenor belongs enters the stage of dispute due to the conflict with the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful even though it does not constitute occupational accident.

Basic Facts

This Court shall set forth in this section.