[1] The scope of permission to change the scope of union members during the existence of a trade union

[2] The case holding that the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry is not allowed to change its organization into the contents that recognize the membership qualification for the employees of the Korea Chamber of Commerce

[1] In light of the effect of structural change that a trade union changes the scope of its union members during the existence of a trade union shall succeed to the property relationship of the union before and after the change and the status as the principal agent of a collective agreement before and after the change, it is recognized within the extent that the substantial identity of the union before and after the change is recognized. Since a trade union shall become the principal agent of the union and operate independently, in a single collective and democratic manner, it cannot form a trade union at another place of business or make a decision

[2] The case holding that a trade union of the Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry changes its organization and expands its membership to workers of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which is separate independent corporation, is not allowed since it does not maintain substantial identity in its human composition and it is not allowed (it is against the rules of the Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry, even if the Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry recognized its membership as its membership in practice for workers of the Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry since it is against its own rules and regulations, and such practice is not effective)

[1] Article 3 (refer to Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 8 (refer to Article 5 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 13 (refer to Article 10 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 14 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 3 (refer to Article 2 subparagraph 4 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 5 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 13 (refer to Article 10 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 14 of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12028 delivered on February 12, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 996) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu7122 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1090), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu14007 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1895)

Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu21056 delivered on February 23, 1995

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revised the plaintiff's name on November 17, 1993 to the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which is a trade union whose members are Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and changed the scope of its members to workers engaged in the previous Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul") and reported the change of its establishment to the defendant's employees in Seoul and the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul"), and rejected the report on the change of its establishment. The defendant's above change of its establishment is not allowed under the Trade Union Act, and the defendant's report on the change of its establishment is independent of a corporation established under the law of the Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry, but the secretary general in the Seoul, the secretary general in the Seoul, and the director general in the Seoul Secretariat, in the Seoul, until after 1952, are the same as the president in the Seoul Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the plaintiff's employees in the Seoul Department of Commerce and Industry established separate from the Seoul Department of Commerce and Industry's established by the Seoul Department of Commerce.

2. Where a trade union changes the scope of its union members during the existence of a trade union, it shall be recognized within the extent that the substantial identity of the union before and after the change is recognized in light of the effect of structural change that the union succeeds to the property relations of the union before and after the change and the status as the principal agent of a collective agreement. Since a trade union is operated independently, independently, and indirectly as the principal agent of the union workers, a trade union organized a trade union at a certain workplace or may not make a decision on its organizational structure. As such in the instant case, expanding the organization of the Plaintiff to workers under the status of its union members cannot be permitted since it does not maintain substantial identity in the human composition of the union ( even if the Plaintiff recognized the membership of the union from before and after the change, it goes against the rules of the Plaintiff, which is an autonomous law, and such practices are not effective). As such, a trade union is formed by a resolution of the resolution of the Plaintiff general meeting and is determined as a result of its structural formation or membership qualification, it cannot be permitted to be viewed as against the independence and democracy of the trade union.

3. Nevertheless, the court below decided that it is permitted to revise the rules at the plaintiff's general meeting to expand the scope of workers in relation to the organization of the plaintiff union. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules and organizational change of the trade union, autonomy and democracy of the trade union, and such illegality has influenced the judgment. Thus, the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)