Taeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm International Law Firm, Attorneys Shin-mo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 2 and ten others

Defendant 13

Defendant 14 (Attorney Choi Yong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

may 23, 2005

Ulsan District Court Decision 2001Gahap3715 Delivered on May 19, 2004

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant 1 and 13 shall be modified as follows.

A. Defendant 1 and 13 jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff Thai Industrial Co., Ltd. the amount of KRW 190 million, KRW 34 million, and 5% per annum from January 25, 2002 to April 20, 2005, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the above defendants are all dismissed.

2. All appeals filed against Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 and the defendant 13 shall be borne by each party, and the costs of the appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 20 million won to the Plaintiff Thai Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Thai Industries”), and 200 million won to the Plaintiff Thai Island Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Thai Island”) with the interest of 200 million won per annum from the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs: The part against the plaintiffs falling under the amount to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Defendants 1 and 13 shall be jointly and severally with the defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 60 million won to the plaintiff Taedong Industries and the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 shall be jointly and severally with the defendant 1 and 13 to the plaintiff Taedong Industries, with 20 million won, 13,6 million won to the plaintiff Taedong Industries and 10 million won to May 19, 204, and 200 per annum 5% interest per annum from the following day to 20% interest per annum.

B. Defendant 1 and 13: Revocation of the part against the above Defendants among the judgment of the first instance. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in their entirety, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed in their preliminary cases.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 through 34, Gap evidence 4-1 through 74, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 47-1 through 18, Eul evidence 5-1 to 60, Eul evidence 61-1 to 63, Eul evidence 62-1 to 63, Eul evidence 1 to 5-1 to 4-1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4-1, Eul evidence 5-1 to 5-2, Eul evidence 5-1 to 4-1, Eul evidence 6-1 to 5-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4-1, Eul evidence 6-1 to 6-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4-1 to 7-2, Eul evidence 5-1 to 5-1 to 6-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4-1 to 6-1, respectively.

A. The Parties

On April 1, 2001, Non-Party 4 concurrently operated the representative director and operated the same as the company manufacturing chemical fiber products at Ulsan-dong 221, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-dong, and Non-Party 5 separated the personnel affairs and accounting affairs of the two companies from April 2, 2001.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 13, as the representative of the Trade Union of Thai Industries, organized in 1993 as the workers of the foregoing Ulsan Factory, did not distinguish between the plaintiffs' company and they concluded collective bargaining with the plaintiffs as the only negotiation body of the above Ulsan Factory. In 201, the major positions of the Trade Union of this case and the relevant officers and major representatives of the Trade Union of this case are as shown in the List No. 1. Defendant 1 and 13, as the representatives of the Trade Union of this case, were the Vice Minister of General Affairs, and Defendant 13, as the representative of the Trade Union of this case. Meanwhile, Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 were general members of the Trade Union of this case.

B. Status of the transfer of the instant strike

(1) At the time of November 8, 200, the Trade Union of this case entered into a collective agreement with Nonparty 4, who represented the plaintiffs, and drafted an employment guarantee agreement added thereto. Article 42 of the said collective agreement provides that "the company shall, in case where 20 or more members of the company carry out lump sum of lump sum persons related to the company due to the company's circumstances, agree in advance with the Trade Union and Trade Association on the method of doing so. When it is recognized that the company's urgent management necessity is likely to cause danger, the company shall agree in advance to reduce the amount of reduction, size of reduction, adjusted object, method of selection, method of selection, and procedure." The contents of the said employment guarantee agreement provide that "the company shall not artificially reduce the members of the company currently in office. The company shall not act as the recommending director, desired retirement, voluntary retirement, and layoff." This agreement has the same effect as the collective agreement concluded on November 8, 200."

(2) Since the early 1990s, Chinese and South Asian countries started to attack chemical fiber markets on the basis of low-wages' labor force, resulting in a lot of insolvency, six companies, such as Han Wol Island, Gohap, Eastern Trade, New Franchis, Franchising Island, and large scale of companies such as large scale of companies, company reorganization, and composition, etc. Since the early 2000s, many companies had entered into a workshop, company organization, and composition. Since the mid 190s, many companies were in progress in China with low labor cost to get out of the circumstances such as reduction of raw materials price, increase in global market price, and global economic depression. Since the mid 200s, since the mid 200s, the portion of the Plaintiff Taedong Industries had been in 90 U.S. products with the exception of the remainder of the products with low 90 strins since then 200.

(3) The Plaintiffs diagnosed the trend in the field of Korean and foreign paintings and substantial business depression by the management crisis. From August 200 to June 2001, the Plaintiffs selected producers who lose competitiveness due to the decline in the rate of factory operation and the increase in inventory on several occasions, and suspended 432 persons, and maintained the rate of factory operation of approximately 80% as of June 5, 2001.

C. Progress of the instant strike

(1) On April 10, 201, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission requested the Plaintiffs to negotiate more than seven times until May 23, 2001, after submitting a separate request from 6 clauses, such as basic pay increase of 13%, demand for wage payment of piece rates 200%, increase of family allowances and overtime allowances, increase of long-term continuous service allowances, increase and establishment of shift work hours, granting one day of paid leave, reinstatement of dismissed persons, new investment to guarantee employment, etc. However, the Plaintiffs requested a separate bargaining since the representative director who has the right to determine working conditions, etc. is different as a separate corporation, and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission requested a separate bargaining postponement. Accordingly, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission in this case is subject to the same wage agreement and collective agreement, and thus, it is not reasonable to demand a separate bargaining on the grounds of organizational separation on the grounds of uniform bargaining practices.

(2) Since May 29, 2001 through June 5, 2001, the Plaintiffs and the instant union negotiations were conducted from May 29, 2001 to June 5, 2001. However, as to the establishment and implementation of a plan to suspend business operations for 19 workers in the carbon textile process of the solar industry and 232 workers in the Taecheon Island, the instant union demanded the company to establish measures for employment security through new investments, opposing that the above measure for business suspension is a prior measure for layoff, and the Plaintiffs did not have any progress in negotiations at all, while presenting a solution through the reduction of wages by 14.5% or the implementation of voluntary retirement.

(3) Since May 31, 2001 to June 2, 2001 to enter the strike in line with the schedule of the Democratic Labor Group, a superior organization, the voting proposal and wage negotiation proposal for the prevention of restructuring were passed, respectively, after holding the pro-con voting for the industrial action against all union members, each of which was decided on June 5, 2001. On June 5, 2001, the situation where the public authority was put to the Ulsan factories of the Democratic Labor Group, the U.S. P., the U.S. Head of the Ulsan Headquarters, which enforced dissolution of the strike and arrest the strike employees occurred, the policy was established to force the strike to support the strike, and the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission was decided on June 7, 2001 to file an application for the adjustment, and the temporary adjustment period was decided on June 16, 201, but the temporary adjustment period was completed.

(4) However, on June 12, 2001, 100 neighboring high-class 1 factory was opened to the front wave and 200 KMM 20, and 100 KM 200 KM 3,000 KM 2, and there was an assault against the non-party 6, such as non-party 3, etc., on the ground that the non-party 2 was prevented from illegal parking by the old-class 4, the non-party 7, who was the chairman of the old-class labor union, convened an emergency meeting of the dispute-level 21, respectively, on June 12, 2001. The dispute-raising committee, even before the end of the mediation period, decided to place the old-class 100 KM 20 to the front-class 10,000 KM 20 to the front-class 10,000 KMM 20 to the front-class 10,000 KMM 20.

(5) On June 12, 2001, the Clock Island and the Clock Island of the Plaintiff were produced by reactioning petroleum chemical ingredients into a heavy reaction. Most of the process was conducted at high temperature above 250 degrees east, according to standard action procedures in order to suspend the process. The content of standard action procedures is to reduce all the materials in the process as raw material input, so that the materials in the process can be injected, and temperature and pressure can be reduced if raw material is reduced. Finally, the Clock of the instant case can stop all the process after washing machinery. However, as seen above, the Clock of the instant case could not allow its members to participate in the strike, and rather, it did not allow its employees to suspend or continue the process in accordance with standard action procedures, and it did not neglect the work of removing or continuing the materials in the process of using the machinery as raw material in order to cause any damage to the machinery or parts in the process of using the machinery within the machinery or pipes.

(6) On the other hand, as to the application for adjustment of the Trade Union's above June 7, 2001, the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission recommended that the trade union's negotiation should be made only on the issue of employment security related to suspension of business, and that the trade union's demand for wage should not be practically negotiated. Thus, the above application for adjustment is difficult to be viewed as a trade dispute under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, so that the negotiation method and the issue of employment security should be resolved reasonably through appropriate means that the labor union or other labor union can join, and that the labor union's demand for wage should be resolved autonomously and independently by active bargaining.

(7) With respect to the instant strike, the details of criminal punishment imposed on major members of the Trade Union of this case are as shown in the attached Table 2.

D. Organizational structure related to the industrial action of the instant union

Article 17 of the Regulations of the Trade Union (Article 17 of the Regulations of the Trade Union) is established as the highest decision-making agency for industrial action. The Trade Union of this case is established under the highest decision-making agency for industrial action, and it is composed of not less than 40 representatives elected from among the 40 or more persons (Article 26 subparagraph 16 and Article 62 of the Regulations of the Trade Union), the steering committee which determines the agenda to be presented to the representatives' competitions (Article 32 subparagraph 4 of the Regulations of the Union), the Standing Executive Committee as the executive organ for the general assembly and representatives of the union (Article 29 of the Regulations of the Union), the establishment of countermeasures against the dispute, the general direction of the dispute, Article 34 of the Regulations of the Trade Union (Article 34 of the Regulations of the Trade Union), and the organization of non-party 2, the chief of the 2, the chief of the 2, the chairperson of the 2, the first 4th executive committee for industrial action and the chief of the 15th executive committee for the Trade Council, the non-party 17.

2. Determination on this safety defense

With respect to the lawsuit of this case against the Defendants who participated in the strike of this case, the Defendants asserted that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case as a means to secure superior status in the lawsuit seeking nullification of dismissal which is pending between the Defendants and the Defendants, and that the lawsuit of this case against the core officers, such as the chairperson of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission, who are the most important person in the strike of this case, is withdrawn and the lawsuit against the Defendants is unlawful as it goes against the principle of equity.

The plaintiffs filed a claim for damages against non-party 27, 28, 29, 16, 21, 30, 2, 31, 14, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 55 of the plaintiffs' major executives, including non-party 7 and non-party 3, non-party 28, 29, 16, 21, 30, 31, 324, 3333, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 34, 42, 42, and 42, 44, 434,

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant strike

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the strike of this case is an illegal strike beyond the scope of legitimate industrial action in terms of its purpose, procedure, means and method. The defendants demanded that the union of this case be engaged in collective bargaining for wage negotiations from April 10, 2001 to 2001. However, the plaintiffs did not comply with the collective bargaining with the collective bargaining by claiming that the plaintiffs cannot participate in the collective bargaining because they were separated from their corporations, and they did not participate in the collective bargaining. After the commencement of the negotiations, they decided industrial action with the consent of 80.2% with the consent of 80.2%, they applied for the mediation of labor disputes to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, and they were engaged in the strike from June 12, 201 due to urgent circumstances. Thus, the defendants asserted that the strike of this case is legitimate industrial action in its purpose, method and method.

(2) Requirements for industrial action to be justified

(A) Article 3 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “If an employer has suffered damages due to collective bargaining or industrial action under this Act, the employer shall not claim compensation for the labor union or worker.” However, the worker’s industrial action is justified and the damages exempt from civil liability under Article 3 of the Act are limited to “ damages due to lawful industrial action” (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32828, 32835, Mar. 25, 1994), and the worker’s industrial action is deemed legitimate, the first person shall be entitled to be the collective bargaining, and the second person’s purpose shall be to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and the worker for the improvement of working conditions. The third person’s industrial action shall not be deemed legitimate if the employer refuses collective bargaining with respect to the specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of the worker, and the third person’s method and method shall not be deemed to have been in line with the employer’s property rights, nor shall it be determined that the industrial action should have been conducted for the purpose of restructuring of the company.

(B) In addition, Article 45(2) of the Act provides that "no industrial action shall be conducted without going through the adjustment procedure prescribed by the Act except where the adjustment procedure is not completed within the adjustment period." This adjustment period is 10 days (Article 54(1) of the Act) from the date on which an application for mediation is filed. In the case of an industrial action, the principle of pre-resolution of mediation is intended to give an opportunity to avoid the occurrence of the dispute in advance and give an opportunity to prevent the occurrence of the dispute by giving prior notice of the occurrence of the dispute. It does not intend to prohibit the industrial action itself, and it does not mean that the industrial action is justifiable merely because the industrial action does not go through mediation. However, if the industrial action results in an unfair result such as stabilizing people's lives or causing confusion or damages that are not for business operation, it shall be deemed that the industrial action lacks legitimacy (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1094 delivered on December 8, 192).

(3) Whether the strike of this case is justifiable

According to the facts acknowledged above, the strike of this case aims to request a full withdrawal of the objection against the restructuring, such as suspension of business, desired retirement, layoff, etc. of some business places due to the deterioration of the company's main purpose, and it lacks legitimacy in its purpose. In addition, the strike of this case is an illegal strike that lacks legitimacy since the strike of this case was completely conducted on June 12, 2001 before the end of the mediation period during which the industrial action is prohibited on June 17, 2001 and did not comply with legitimate procedures. Furthermore, the means and methods of industrial action of this case are clear and obvious that the labor union of this case would cause damage to the plaintiffs' production facilities and process, even though it was directly conducted, planning, ordering or neglecting the suspension of a sudden factory operation and the closure of factory entrance, and so it constitutes an illegal strike that lacks legitimacy.

(b) Reversion of liability for damages;

(1) Defendant 1 and 13’s liability for damages

(A) In a case where the executive officers of a trade union led an industrial action by planning, instructing, guiding, etc., the acts of the executive officers of a trade union are deemed to be acts as executive officers of a trade union. In such a case, a trade union is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the employer due to such illegal industrial action by analogical application of Article 35(1) of the Civil Act. Meanwhile, the acts between the executive officers of a trade union, in addition to the acts of the trade union, can be deemed to be acts of an individual in addition to the acts of the trade union. In general, considering the intrinsic characteristics of the industrial action, which is an act of collective strike by organizing and grouping the labor suspension of individual workers, an individual shall be held liable for civil liability for damages arising therefrom, other than the acts of the trade union and its executive officers (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32828, 32835, supra.).

(B) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, Defendant 1 and 13 were the representatives of the Trade Union of this case. In light of the rules of the Trade Union of this case and the mediation system of the Trade Union of this case, since the representative competition is responsible for the main decision-making related to industrial action such as the strike and the act of forming the dispute countermeasure committee, which is the field leading organization of the industrial action, it cannot be deemed that there is no responsibility for the representative competition members. Furthermore, at the time of the strike of this case, the representatives of the Trade Union of this case decided to punish illegal strike prior to the expiration of the mediation period, but the representative of the Trade Union of this case decided to punish illegal strike prior to the expiration of the mediation period. On June 12, 2001, Defendant 1 and 13 were to enter the full-scale strike from 23:00 on the same day, since the representative of the Trade Union of this case opened an temporary representative to expand the damages caused by the strike of this case. Thus, the Defendants, who actually participated in the strike of this case, shall also be held the actual authority of the representative.

(C) Although the above Defendants were to be the executives of the Trade Union of this case, the trade union of this case was an illegal strike that lost legitimacy in deciding to commence the trade union prior to the termination of mediation procedures by the Trade Union of this case, along with other union members. The above Defendants asserted that even the representatives are merely the members of the representative body, and did not actually take part in the decision-making or leading of the trade union of this case. Thus, they did not compensate for damages.

However, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the representative of the Trade Union in this case has made a specific decision on the commencement or execution method of the Trade Union in this case, and there is no evidence to deem that the above Defendants were situations where they could not participate in the decision or planning of the Trade Union in this case or actively prevented them from being illegal. Thus, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the claim against the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14

(A) The plaintiffs asserted that the above Defendants, a general member of the Trade Union of this case, actively participated in the strike of this case in accordance with the direction of the Trade Union and the executive body, and committed an unlawful act, such as exercising violence and destroying it. Thus, they also claim that Defendant 1 and 13, an executive member of the Trade Union of this case, are liable to compensate for damages caused by the strike of this case.

(B) According to the statements of Gap's evidence 42, Gap's evidence 48, 49-1 through 7, Gap's evidence 50-1 through 9, Gap's evidence 51, 52-1 through 10, Gap's evidence 53-1 through 14, Gap's evidence 54, 55-1 through 7, Gap's evidence 56-1 through 10, Gap's evidence 57-1 through 57-9, Gap's evidence 58-1 through 10, Gap's evidence 60-1 through 13, defendant 2, 10, 4, 5, and 8 participated in the strike of this case and obstructed the company's entrance and exit, defendant's participation in the order to return to the company of this case, defendant 7-1 and 6-1 and 60-13, respectively.

However, considering the essential characteristics of the industrial action, which is a systematic and collective strike, it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to assume that there is no liability for damages caused by an illegal industrial action, aside from imposing liability on an individual tort that cannot be included as an act of a trade union, in the case of a general union member who has participated in an illegal industrial action according to a decision-making of the organization and has suspended the provision of labor, only for the executive members of a trade union who actively participated in organizing or organizing an industrial action by planning, ordering, guiding an illegal industrial action.

In the case of this case, as seen earlier, the strike of this case was led under the direction of the Trade Union Representative's decision and the Dispute Countermeasures Committee. Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 are deemed to be merely an act as a private member, a photographor, or a mere participation in the strike in accordance with the Trade Union's decision and order, and there is no other evidence to deem that the above Defendants led to the plan, direction, and direction of the strike of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the above Defendants is without merit without merit.

4. Scope of damages.

(a) the scope of damages recognized;

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 35-1, 2, 36-2, Gap evidence 37-1 through 14, Gap evidence 38-1 through 11, Gap evidence 39-1 through 4, Gap evidence 40, 44, and 45, and non-party 1's testimony of the first instance court.

(1) Damage caused on June 12, 2001 by destruction of raw materials, parts, and days during use due to the interruption of factory AD Agreement

(A) The plaintiff Thai light industry

(i) 46,284,00 won of block ballon factories

(ii) 24,864,440 won per day of a factory

(iii) strins plant pex 686,700,000 won

4) Dexexex dex 250,000,000 won

5) Small amount: 1,007,848,440 won (46,284,00 won +24,864,440 won +686,700,00 won +250,000 won);

(B) The U.S. Island

(i) PE single-made fibres 12,556,756 won

(ii) 7,862,335 won of the PE fiber processing.

(iii) damage costs of PE chips 68,385,600

(d) Small amount: 88,804,691 won (12,56,756 won + 7,862,335 won + 68,385,60 won);

(2) Costs of disposal of raw material wastes

(A) The Plaintiff Thai light industry: 51,231,180 won

(b) The Grand Island for the plaintiff: 38,169,600 won

(3) Costs for purchasing damaged equipment at the time of the instant strike

(A) The plaintiff Thai light industry

(i) 61,001,160 won for the purchase of office supplies such as damaged books, tables, chairss;

(ii) 7,330,200 won for the purchase of damaged packing materials;

3) 9,693,000 won for the purchase of fire extinguishing agents and fire extinguishing systems used for fire extinguishing (13,017,000 won or sought for charging expenses, etc.)

(d) Small amount: 78,024,360 won (61,001,160 won +7,330,200 won +9,693,00 won);

(B) The U.S. Island

(i)the cost of purchasing the damaged packing material of KRW 3,257,00;

(2) 6,312,00 won for the purchase of fire-fighting equipments and fire-fighting systems used for fire-fighting purposes (water-saving expenses, etc., 8,883,000 won or sought)

(c) Sub-committees: 9,569,000 won;

(iv)the cost of repairing and replacing the pipes damaged, and the cost of mechanical repair;

(A) Plaintiff Thai light industry: 729,260,514 won

(b) The Grand Island for the plaintiff: 204,050,000 won

(5) The delayed charge of imported raw materials of the Plaintiff Thaie Industry: 33,275,550 won

(6) Damages

Therefore, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff’s Thai Industries due to the instant strike is individually recognized as KRW 1,89,640,04 ( KRW 1,07,848,440 + KRW 51,231,180 + KRW 78,024,360 + + KRW 729,260,514 + + KRW 33,275,550). The amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff’s Thai Island is KRW 340,593,291 + KRW 38,804,69,69,600 + KRW 204,050 + KRW 9,569,00).

B. Limitation of liability for damages

As seen earlier, the strike of this case also has the nature of collective action based on the right to organize of workers guaranteed by the Constitution and its purpose, means, methods, and procedurally unlawful. However, the strike of this case also has the nature of collective action based on the right to organize of workers guaranteed by the Constitution, so it seems reasonable that the responsibility for such collective action is first secured by the labor union's responsible property rather than individual workers, and considering the ideology of the compensation system for fair sharing of damages, the individual responsibility between the union and the union for illegal industrial action should be limited to the extent that it is not secured by the labor union's responsible property from among the damages caused by illegal industrial action, or to the extent that it is inappropriate to repay it to the labor union's responsible property.

Furthermore, in the case of this case, the trade union cannot be deemed to be the object of industrial action with respect to the essential issues related to the management right such as the implementation of layoffs. However, it cannot be deemed that the trade union and the employer's autonomous bargaining or consultation about this issue are prohibited. Since the plaintiffs entered into an employment guarantee agreement such as collective agreement with the union of this case around November 2000 prior to the strike of this case, at least for a considerable period of time, consultation or agreement on the restructuring should have been entered into with the union of this case, but at least in the early stage, it did not sufficiently respond to their nature while requesting a separate bargaining from the existing practice under the pretext that the organization system between the plaintiffs was separated even after the request was made several times from the union of this case. The lawsuit against the union of this case against the union of this case was withdrawn, the plaintiffs' damages claim against the union of this case is most part of the parties who participated in the strike, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs 100,000 won, the whole damages suffered by the plaintiffs 300,00,00,000,00 won.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1 and 13 are jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 25, 2002 to April 20, 2005, which is the date following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the above Defendants as to the Plaintiff Thai Industries, and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 190 million won per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Accordingly, the claims against the above Defendants are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims against the Defendants and the damages for delay against the Defendants 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,90,10,112, and 14, as requested by the Plaintiff. As such, the part of the appeal against the Defendants against Defendant 1 and the Defendants 2 are dismissed, the part of the appeal against the Defendants 1 and 3, 14.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Ma Sung-man (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-jin applied mutatis mutandis to the case