Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm citizen, Attorneys Lee Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Pacific P&C Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 30, 2011

1. The Defendant: 21,237,023 won to Plaintiff 1; 558,757 won to Plaintiff 2; 594,903 won to Plaintiff 3; 427,310 won to Plaintiff 4; 317,590 won to Plaintiff 5; 97,120 won to Plaintiff 6; and 5% per annum to December 21, 2011 to Plaintiff 6;

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 21,598,733 won, 846,510 won to the plaintiff 2, 801,350 won to the plaintiff 3, 581,310 won to the plaintiff 4, 663,770 won to the plaintiff 5, 238,770 won to the plaintiff 6, and 20% interest per annum to the day of full payment from March 1, 2011 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From July 1, 2010, Plaintiff 1 was an employee of the Defendant, the branch of the Korea Metal Trade Union’s Gyeonggi Metal Branch (32 members; hereinafter “instant Trade Union”), Plaintiff 2, the chief executive officer, Plaintiff 3, the chief executive officer, Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 5, Plaintiff 6, the chief executive officer of the labor safety department, and Plaintiff 6, the full-time officer of the trade union, and Plaintiff 2 resigned from the above position on July 18, 2010.

B. On November 21, 2008, the Defendant concluded a collective agreement with the instant union (hereinafter “instant collective agreement”) with the following content.

1) The Defendant recognizes two of its members recommended by the Defendant as his/her full-time officer, and pays “basic money + various allowances + + overtime work hours of 80 hours + bonus” as wages.

2) If a union member or a union member or a union member works for the union (the hours during which the union member works for the union; the time during which the union member participates in collective bargaining and various events held by the labor and management; the general and special meetings of the union members; the meetings and training hours of non-standing union members; the meeting and training hours of non-standing union members; and the training of union members (one hour per

3) The term of validity of a collective agreement shall be March 31, 2010, and shall be deemed automatically renewed if a proposal for renewal is not submitted 15 days prior to the expiration date of the term of validity from both labor and management. The term of validity shall expire and the validity shall continue until renewal is concluded even if one of the parties terminates the collective agreement.

C. The term of validity of the instant collective agreement has not yet been concluded until March 31, 2010.

D. From July 1, 2010 to the 14th day of the same month, the Defendant issued a notification to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 9930, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Labor Relations Adjustment Act”) that the payment of wages to full-time union workers was suspended from July 1, 2010, and the Defendant requested the time-off worker and the time-off worker use plan to be notified. However, the instant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment did not comply therewith, and on August 11, 2010, the instant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment notified the instant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment that “The instant collective agreement shall be terminated in accordance with Article 32(3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, since four months have elapsed since the term of validity of the instant collective agreement expired.”

(e) Relevant statutes;

Article 24 (Full-time Officer of Trade Union)

(1) If provided in a collective agreement or consented by employers, workers may be engaged exclusively in affairs of the trade union without providing the employer with labor specified in their employment contracts.

(2) A person who is engaged exclusively in affairs of the trade union pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not receive any benefits from the employer during the period of his/her transfer.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2), where an employer determines or agrees to do so by a collective agreement, workers may, to the extent not exceeding the limit of exemption from working hours determined pursuant to Article 24-2 in consideration of the number of union members, etc. for each business or workplace, conduct maintenance and management of a trade union for the development of sound labor-management relations, such as consultation, negotiation, grievance settlement, industrial safety activities, etc. with the employer,

2) Article 32 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Effective Term of Collective Agreement)

(1) No collective agreement shall provide for an effective period exceeding two years.

(2) Where the term of validity is not specified in a collective agreement or exceeds the term under paragraph (1), such term of validity shall be two years.

(3) Where a new collective agreement is not concluded even though both parties have continued to conduct collective bargaining before and after the expiration of the term of validity of the previous collective agreement, the previous collective agreement shall remain effective for three months from the expiration date of the term, except as otherwise expressly agreed: Provided, That where a collective agreement provides that if a new collective agreement is not concluded even after the expiration date of the term of validity, the previous collective agreement shall remain in force until the date of conclusion of the new collective agreement, such agreement shall prevail, and either of the parties may terminate the previous collective agreement by notifying the other party of six months prior to the date on which he

(iii) Article 1 (Enforcement Date) of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act.

This Act shall enter into force on January 1, 2010: Provided, That the amended provisions of Article 24(3), (4), and (5), Article 81 subparag. 4, and Article 92 shall enter into force on July 1, 2010, between them and below.

(iv) Article 3 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Transitional Measures for Collective Agreements);

A collective agreement in force as at the time this Act enters into force shall be deemed concluded pursuant to this Act: Provided, That if all or part of the collective agreement violates Article 24 pursuant to the enforcement of this Act, it shall be deemed effective until the effective period of the relevant collective agreement, notwithstanding the enforcement of this Act.

(v) Article 8 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Special Exception to the application of full-time officer);

Article 24 (2) and subparagraph 4 of Article 81 (limited to provisions concerning subsidies for full-time officers of a trade union) shall not apply until June 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, Eul Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

Since the term of validity of the proviso of Article 3 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act includes the term of validity where the term of validity is automatically renewed, the term of validity of the instant collective agreement is until February 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs claim for the payment of wages not paid to the Plaintiffs, such as the former employer, etc. for the term of validity.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that, after the lapse of March 31, 2010, the term of validity of the instant collective agreement, wages cannot be paid to the pregnant women, etc. from July 1, 2010 to the workplace where Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is applied regardless of the renewal of the instant collective agreement.

B. Determination

The key issue of this case is when and when the applicable period of Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is changed or when the term "the effective period at the time of concluding a collective agreement" under the proviso of Article 3 of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is examined.

The conclusion of an extension or renewal agreement at the expiration of the collective agreement is naturally the same as that of the previous collective agreement, and it is valid to automatically renew the agreement without notification of the amendment or destruction thereof within a certain period of time when the collective agreement expires. However, the new term of validity is not restricted by Article 32(1) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Supreme Court Decision 92Da27102 delivered on February 9, 1993). In light of the purport of the Supreme Court precedent that the new term of validity is restricted by Article 32(1) and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it shall be deemed that a new term of validity shall be continued after automatic renewal, and if the provisions of the automatic renewal agreement are stipulated in the collective agreement to prevent the gap as much as possible, it shall be deemed that the provisions of Article 12(3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act shall expire from 60 months before the date on which one party intends to terminate the previous collective agreement, and it shall be deemed that the provisions of Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Act shall be applied.

In light of the above legal principles, the collective agreement in this case expired on March 31, 2010, and the new collective agreement has not been concluded up to now. Thus, the collective agreement in this case was automatically renewed under the collective agreement in this case and became effective, and the defendant made notification of termination on August 11, 2010 pursuant to the proviso of Article 32(3) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and the collective agreement in this case becomes null and void from February 12, 201, when six months have elapsed since the date of termination notification in this case.

Furthermore, according to the health class, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the amount of wages that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs, the items that the plaintiffs did not receive in relation to labor union activities constitute "unsurging" among the part-time allowances in the wage statement. Accordingly, the plaintiff 1 is entitled to wages as the full-time union worker until February 11, 201, plaintiff 2, plaintiff 3, 594,903, plaintiff 4, 427, 57, 310, 317, 59, 60, and 97, 607, and 207, respectively.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 1, 2011 to December 21, 201, which is the date of this decision, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiffs as of March 1, 201, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in Articles 36 and 37 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, but the above provision is about the case where the worker retires or dies, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs retired, the above provision shall not apply).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo