In a case where some of the participants in an assembly held by a trade union assaulted police officers to inflict an injury, lay a stone on a police bus, and damaged by incidental facilities of glass windows, the case holding that the liability is limited to 70% by recognizing the joint tort liability of the organizer of the assembly and the participants in an assembly who engaged in the act of injury or damage to 70%.

In a case where some of the participants in an assembly held by a trade union separated from the place of assembly and attempted to enter the company building and inflicted an injury upon police officers who prevented them by assaulting on the police bus and setting up glass windows, etc., and damaged them by incidental facilities, the case holding that the liability is limited to 70% in consideration of various circumstances, including the fact that the trade union, the organizer of the assembly, and the participants of the assembly who engaged in the act of causing injury or damage, and that there is an essential limitation in maintaining the order of assembly by the organizer and moderators.

Articles 396, 760, and 763 of the Civil Act

Korea

National Metal Trade Union et al. (Law Firm New Day, Attorneys Kim Gyeong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

October 27, 2009

1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 4,047,050 won with 5% interest per annum from June 28, 2007 to November 24, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 3/5 is borne by the Plaintiff, and 2/5 is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 11,191,434 won and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from June 28, 2007 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff seeks payment to the Defendants jointly and severally, but it is customary to add the phrase “each person” from the perspective of clarifying the nature of the performance obligation in indicating the overlapping relationship between each Defendant’s obligations in the quasi-joint and several liability relationship, such as the obligation of the joint tortfeasor, etc.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 26, 2007, Defendant Korea Metal Trade Union (hereinafter “Defendant Metal Trade Union”) submitted a report on outdoor assembly (hereinafter “instant assembly”) stating the following to the Cheongdju Pung Police Station on the following (hereinafter “instant assembly”).

(1) The name of the assembly: The Competition of Metal Workers at the Promotion of Faithful Negotiations in Connection with Maternal Termination

(2) Date and time of holding: 11:00 to 19:30 on June 28, 2007

3. Place of holding: The ○○ Company (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Company”) in the Chang-si, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as the “In the instant Company”) in Chungcheongnam-do.

(4) Organicers: the Korean Metal Trade Union.

5. Order keepers: Nonparty 1 and 49 others.

(6) The number of prospective participants: 500 persons.

(7) The method of demonstration: The utilization of various publicity tools, including various sound instruments and flag cards.

(8) A demonstration route: No one who has conducted any demonstration.

B. At around 15:30 on June 28, 2007, the defendant metal labor union held the instant assembly as stated in the report on the assembly, and since that time, the progress of the instant assembly is as follows.

① At 15:30: The assembly in this case was held among participants in an assembly with approximately 400 persons, such as Defendant Metal Labor Helpers, and the event of a competition company, transitional report, solidarity, cultural performance, etc. was conducted.

② At 16:20: Around 10, more than 10 executive members of Defendant Metal Labor Unions, were required to move to the company’s sentiments to ask for an interview on the employer’s side and file a demand for the withdrawal of the binding force in the atmosphere above.

③ At 16:30 p.m., among the participants in an assembly, approximately 100 people went away from the assembly place and moved to the latter part of the company, and thereafter, the employer demanded an interview, and attempted to enter the company. Accordingly, the director of the security division ordered by the head of the Cheongduk-gu Police Station for the public interest and interest, issued warnings on the law measures and compulsory dissolution over three occasions, but the above participants attempted to enter the company without complying with the consent of the participants.

④ Since then, upon the occurrence of an excessive demonstration, such as violence, etc. at the instant assembly, police officers belonging to the Chungcheong North Provincial Police Agency and the Chungcheong Police Station ordered the participants of the assembly to dissolve. However, some of the participants of the assembly committed assault by the police officers who prevented the entry of the company, such as setting a shot and finial finial finial finial finial finial finial finial finites, and fining the police officers who finite finite find the police officers, and fining the police officers’ finite finite finite find find find and find the police officers, etc., and inflicted injury on the police officers 17, as indicated in [Attachment 1], as indicated in [Attachment 2] find find find find find find f in the police bus.

C. The remaining Defendants except Defendant Metal Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the remaining Defendants”) participated in the instant assembly and attempted to enter the company, and committed the following acts against the police officers who prevented the Defendants from entering the company:

① Defendant 2: The chief of the Defendant Metal Trade Union and the chief of the instant assembly sent the society of the instant assembly; Defendant 2 demanded an interview on the employer’s side while taking out relief and speaking for a strike; instigated participants in the assembly, and was boomed in the nearest situation.

② Defendant 3: (a) as the president of the instant company’s labor union branch and the operating member of the Defendant metal labor union branch; (b) as the chief of the instant company’s labor union branch; (c) as the chief of the instant company’s labor union branch; (d) inciting members of the labor union; (d) instigated members of the labor union

③ Defendant 4: The Head of the Seoul Branch Office of metal labor union, the head of the Secretariat of the Seoul Branch of the Republic of Korea, and the head of the interview delegation, viewed the company as one of the members of the interview delegation, attempted to enter the company, and demanded the release of the fluences, etc. until the process of the development of violence and demonstration is completed.

④ Defendant 5: Before the instant assembly, the police officers were able to look at the police officers.

⑤ Defendant 6: A police officer waiting in front of the company’s sentiments assaulted him with a fluence.

[Basis] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 5-3, 8-1 through 4, 19, 20-1 through 4, 21, 22, and 23; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that although Defendant Metal Trade Union was obligated to maintain the order of the assembly of this case as the organizer of the assembly of this case, the participants in the assembly of this case, including the remaining Defendants, were negligent in doing harm to 22 police officers, damaged 5 police buses, and seized or damaged the extinguishing equipments, such as the two-way and the extinguishing clothes, the defendants shall compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to joint tort committed by the defendants, and even if not, the defendant Metal Trade Union was in the position of the employer who directs and supervises the assembly of this case against the participants of the assembly of this case, the plaintiff shall compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the illegal act committed by the participants of the assembly of this case

As to this, the Defendants asserted that: (a) Defendant Metal Trade Union did all necessary measures to maintain the order of the instant assembly; (b) although there was violence and destruction during the assembly process, it was not planned, instigated, and aided; and (c) Defendant Metal Trade Union did not have any physical power or judicial control power; (d) the mere fact that the participants failed to prevent the above violence and destruction cannot be deemed to have failed to fulfill the duty to maintain order; and (b) the participants in the instant assembly did not have the relation of actual direction and supervision, and (b) the rest of the Defendants were unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim, since they did not instigate other participants to commit violence or directly participate in it.

B. Determination

(1) According to the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the organizer of an assembly or demonstration shall maintain the order in the assembly or demonstration (Article 16(1)), and the participants shall comply with the instruction of organizers and moderatorss to maintain order, and shall not commit any act that disturbs the order by means of violence, threat, damage, etc. (Article 18). The organizer of an assembly or demonstration shall declare the completion of the assembly or demonstration unless he/she is able to maintain the order (Article 16(3)). Accordingly, the Defendant Metal No.1 has a duty to maintain the order as the organizer of the assembly of this case to prevent the participants from doing any act of harm or damage to the assembly of this case.

In the case of joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act where several persons jointly inflict damage on another person, the conspiracy between the actors does not require a common perception. However, if the collaborative act is jointly related, it is sufficient if the collaborative act is jointly related, and if damage is incurred due to the pertinent joint act, a joint tort which is liable for objection is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Meu130, Jun. 8, 1982; 9Da41749, Apr. 11, 2000).

According to the above facts, the participants of the assembly of this case tried to enter the company in spite of the police's dispersion order, and part of the participants of the assembly of this case, including the other defendants, committed the act of injury and damage in the course of exercising violence against police officers who suppress the demonstration, and Defendant Metal No. 1 took appropriate measures such as not leaving the assembly place to prevent it, and actively notifying the participants of the assembly that they would not engage in the act of injury and damage, but failed to comply with it. Accordingly, Defendant Metal No. 1, as the organizer of the assembly of this case, the remaining defendants, as well as the participants of the assembly of this case, are obliged to compensate for the damages jointly suffered by the plaintiff.

(2) On the other hand, the participants in the assembly of this case, including the remaining Defendants, inflicted injury on the non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6 (a total of KRW 431,716) and damaged the suppression equipment, such as the non-electric units and the extinguishing clothes (a total of KRW 874,500), shall be examined.

[Plaintiff’s total medical expenses of KRW 8,259,934 [Attachment 1] (Attachment 7,828,308 and above KRW 431,716 are added to the medical expenses of KRW 8,260,024, which appears to be an error due to the Plaintiff’s erroneous entry of the medical expenses of KRW 14 out of [Attachment 1].] The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 11,191,434, total of KRW 2,057,00 for vehicle repair expenses of KRW 2,057,00 for equipment damage, and KRW 874,50 for equipment damage of KRW 14,191,434]

Each statement of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4-1 through 4, 6, and 7 presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Limitation on liability; and

As seen earlier, the participants in an assembly shall follow the direction of the organizer and moderators for the maintenance of order, and shall not commit any act that disturbs the order by assault, threat, damage, etc. The maintenance of order at an assembly held by the organizer and moderators is premised on the voluntary cooperation of the participants in the assembly to maintain order as above. Even if the participants in the assembly fail to comply with the direction of the organizer and moderators, there is no way to enforce such order by the organizer and moderators, and there is no essential limit to the maintenance of order at an assembly held by the organizer and moderators.

In this context, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 did not directly inflict any injury on police officers; the degree of participation by Defendants 5 and Defendant 6 is relatively minor; plus the above recognition, the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 5 through 18 of this Article is as follows; in other words, around June 2002, Defendant metal labor unions and Seoul Branch ○○○○○○ Group employees were dismissed due to an act of violence, which was punished during wage negotiations; the above dismissal at the Seoul Administrative Court decided on August 18, 2005 that the above dismissal at the Seoul Administrative Court did not carry out the requirements of the labor union members, such as the dismissal of the union members, and the interview between the union and the employer at the head office, as well as the overall purport of the above recognition, it is reasonable for the Defendants to limit the Defendants’ liability to compensate for damages in light of the following circumstances.

4. Scope of damages.

A. (1) According to Article 8(2) and Article 57(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Establishment of Pilotage Police Units, when a member of the combat police compounds was killed in action or performance of official duties, the State is required to bear the treatment expenses. According to each of the items of evidence No. 4-1 through No. 4, the Plaintiff spent KRW 3,724,50 in total with 17 members of the combat police compounds, such as the details of treatment of the wounded (attached Form 1) due to the act of injury in this case. The Plaintiff who paid the treatment expenses pursuant to the above Act and subordinate statutes may directly claim against the Defendants for the compensation of the above treatment expenses. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damage from the act of injury in this case is KRW 3,724,500.

On the other hand, in light of the purport of Article 54-2(1) of the National Health Insurance Act, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the Corporation’s charge should be included in the amount of damages caused by the instant injury, since the Plaintiff bears the relevant expenses, in light of the purport of Article 54-2(1).

However, insofar as the Commissioner of the National Police Agency deposits medical care benefit costs or insufficient medical care benefit costs anticipated to be annually required pursuant to Article 27-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Health Insurance Act into an account designated by the Agency, or pays them to the Agency, and there is no assertion or proof of the enforcement status of deposits related to the instant medical benefit costs, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be readily concluded that

(2) In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5-1 to No. 5-2, the plaintiff paid KRW 2,057,000 in total as the repair cost for five police buses, as shown in attached Form 2, due to the destruction or damage caused by the assembly of this case.

B. Therefore, the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are liable to pay to each Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,724,50 in total, KRW 2,057,00 in total, KRW 5,781,50 in total, KRW 4,047,050 ( KRW 5,781,50 in total, KRW 70 in total, KRW 5,781,50 in total, KRW 70 in total, and KRW 5,781,50 in total, and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% in accordance with the scope of the Defendants’ liability from June 28, 2007, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute the existence or scope of the instant obligation from June 28, 207, which is the date of this decision, until November 24, 2009, which is the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-jin