[1] Criteria for determining legitimacy of internal public opinion polls or distribution of printed materials

[2] Whether the act of distributing goods constitutes a legitimate scope of activities of workers, where the content of the goods is deemed true in light of the whole, since the act of distributing goods constitutes a legitimate scope of activities of workers, even if the content of the goods is damaged by documents distributed as printed goods and part of the goods is false (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that it is unfair that a company driver's act of conducting a survey without prior approval by the company's driver and producing and distributing printed materials against the company driver's driver is to promote the improvement of the working conditions of the above article, and its contents as a whole are true, and its dismissal is unfair

[1] Even if the rules of employment provide that a company shall obtain prior approval of the company with regard to the distribution of printed materials or public opinion poll, there cannot be a legitimate act for the maintenance and improvement of the working conditions or the promotion of welfare of workers. Thus, whether such act is not legitimate should not be determined with the approval of the company, but should be determined with the content of the printed materials, the timing of purchase and distribution, the object and method of distribution, and the impact of the company or its affairs.

[2] Even if the character, credit, reputation, etc. of another person is damaged, injured, or likely to be damaged, injured, or impaired, or a part of the facts stated in the document is false or exaggerated or distorted, if the purpose of distributing the document is not to infringe upon the rights or interests of another person, but to promote the maintenance and improvement of working conditions, the promotion of workers' welfare, and the enhancement of economic and social status, and if the contents of the document are true in view of the whole, it falls under the legitimate scope of activities of workers.

[3] The case holding that the act of a driver of the company conducted a survey without prior approval of the company and produced and distributed printed articles called "written applications, written complaints, etc." and "co-operations" against its employees is unfair on the ground that the contents of the document are different from some facts, and the contents of the document are basically aimed at improving the working conditions and promoting the welfare of the above company's engineers, and the contents of the document are true.

[1] Article 27(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997; see current Article 30(1)); Article 39 subparag. 1 of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda of Act No. 5244, Dec. 31, 1996; see current Article 81 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) / [2] Article 27(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309, Mar. 13, 1997; see current Article 30(1)); Article 39 subparag. 1 of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Act No. 5244, Dec. 31, 1996; see current Article 81 subparag. 1 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act); Article 39 subparag. 1 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 1301, Mar. 19, 19, 197)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5020 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 1319), Supreme Court Decision 95Da11504 delivered on September 24, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3167) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da1354 delivered on December 28, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 517)

Young Transport Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant Intervenor 1 and one other (Law Office of Dolls, Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu31036 delivered on July 5, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Even if a company is required to obtain prior approval of the company regarding the distribution of printed materials under the rules of employment, the company cannot prevent legitimate acts for the maintenance, improvement, or welfare promotion of the working conditions of its workers. Thus, whether such act is not justifiable or not shall not be determined with the company’s approval, and shall be based on the content, purchase, distribution period, object, method, and impact on the company or its business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu5020, Mar. 13, 1992; 95Da11504, Sept. 24, 1996). Even if part of the facts stated in the document are false or exaggerated or distorted, it shall not be determined with the intent of distributing them, but shall be determined with the intent of maintaining and improving the working conditions of others, and shall be determined with the overall economic status of workers and improving their status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da11504, Sept. 24, 1996).

In this case, the Defendant Defendant 1’s act of making and distributing a survey without prior approval of the company’s original decision, based on the survey, and submitting written applications, written appeals, written appeals, etc. based on them, and producing and distributing “co-operations against the Plaintiff’s employees” was partly different from the content of the document, and even if the expressions are somewhat exaggerated or excessive, the court below’s decision that dismissed the Plaintiff’s employees on the ground that the overall purport is to promote the improvement of working conditions and the promotion of welfare, etc. of the Plaintiff’s news, and that the overall contents of the document is true is just. In light of the records, the court below’s decision that held that dismissal on the ground of this is unfair is just and acceptable in all, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the justifiable reason under Article 27(1) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5245 of Dec. 31, 196).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)