2011Na91212 Damage, Claim

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J

11. K;

12. L.

13. M;

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap119857 Decided October 13, 2011

May 10, 2012

June 14, 2012

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of additional payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 9,500,000, and KRW 2,500,000, each of the 6,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff D, E, and F, respectively, and the amount of KRW 5,50,000 per annum from May 10, 2012 to June 14, 2012 to the plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals and the defendant's appeals are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 90% of the portion arising between plaintiffs A, B, C, and M and the defendant are borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the defendant, and 80% of the portion arising between plaintiffs D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and the defendant are borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the defendant.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 205,70,000 won, 114,80,640 won, each of the plaintiff D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M respectively, 50,000 won per annum from January 1, 1982 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff, B, and C expanded their claims in each trial).

Purport of appeal

[Plaintiffs] The part against which the order to pay under the judgment of the court of first instance was revoked shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,00,00, and KRW 41,500,000, each of the 41,500,000, Plaintiff D, E, and F, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 45,50,500, each of the 47,000,000, and 47,00,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from January 1, 1982 until the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day until the day of full payment.

[Defendant] The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: (b) the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited.

[Completioned Parts (Nos. 5-4-7)]

B) Plaintiff A was detained by the Seoul Southern District Court on December 4, 1981, and the Plaintiff A was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Special Measures for National Security (amended on December 27, 1971) (the Act repealed on December 17, 1981, which was declared on December 17, 1971 under Article 9 of the same Act) (the exercise of the right to collective bargaining or collective action by workers after the declaration of national emergency declared on December 12, 1971 under Article 9 of the same Act shall comply with the decision of the competent administrative agency upon prior application for mediation. However, even if Plaintiff F, D, and E exercised the right to collective action and collective bargaining without a request for mediation, it was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (which was detained by a business owner during the period of improving working conditions), and imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six years, including imprisonment with prison labor for each of the Plaintiffs 16 years and 2 years, respectively.

As of December 7, 1981, the private party opened a disciplinary committee on the grounds that the above plaintiffs were convicted of criminal charges, and decided to dismiss plaintiffs A, F, D, and E, and reported this to the Seoul Southern Police Station around that time.

After that, on December 12, 1981, the Western Labor Relations Commission held a representative election, and the police decided to dismiss the representative election on the ground of the violation of the rules of employment by holding the disciplinary committee and deciding to dismiss the representative election. In addition, the police held that 16 of the elected representatives, including Plaintiff B and C, among the representatives elected as a result of the above election, were to be forced to return to the company in advance. In addition, the police held that 16 of the elected representatives, including Plaintiff B and C, from among the representatives elected, were to be dismissed.

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

The reasons for this part are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance set forth in Section 2-A (No. 6, No. 18, to No. 7, No. 10). Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

The reasons for this part are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance of Article 2-2(b)(No. 7, No. 12, No. 9). Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. Scope of liability for damages

1) Details of the plaintiffs' claim

The Plaintiffs set consolation money according to the type of tort committed by the Defendant, and seek compensation for lost income from illegal dismissal against Plaintiffs B and C, and claim payment of all or part of the amount of damages calculated as shown below.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Calculation of damages in this Court

A) Plaintiff B and C sought compensation for lost income calculated by the method of deducting intermediate interest from statistical income during the period from the time of dismissal to the age of 60. However, it cannot be evaluated that the above Plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to monthly statistical income from the time of dismissal in 2020 or 2018, which became 60 years old from the time of dismissal, due to the dismissal in around 1981, which was 30 years prior to the present 30 years, and there is no other evidence to determine loss of lost income from dismissal, and thus, they do not accept the claim for compensation for lost income from the above Plaintiffs’ claim for compensation for lost income. However, as seen earlier, it should be considered in the calculation of consolation money.

B) As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for compensation, national agencies such as the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Central Information Department, the Police, and the Labor Agency under the Defendant’s control consider as an act in a decent manner, and actively involvement in labor-management relations surrounding the company, thereby hindering formation of the union, monitoring trends of the union members and their families, dismissal of the union members and their families, closure of the company making self-help efforts, etc., directly or indirectly, and making use of the so-called black list difficult to re-employment or monitoring trends of the dismissed union members by preparing and distributing it; ② The Plaintiffs were dismissed from the company or lost their workplace due to closure of the company; ② It appears that the Plaintiffs suffered serious mental distress due to the name and re-employment for a considerable period of time; ⑤ it appears that the Plaintiffs suffered from supervision not only by the police officers but also by their family members; ③ it appears that the Plaintiffs were directly and indirectly involved in the investigation report of the Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs were directly and indirectly involved in the investigation report of the Plaintiffs.

(1) Plaintiff A: 20 million won

(2) Plaintiff D, E, and F: 15 million won

(3) Plaintiff B, C, G, H, I, J, K, L: KRW 10 million

(4) Plaintiff M: 5 million won

(iv)the initial date of the damages for delay;

The plaintiffs claim that the above tort committed by state agencies affiliated with the defendant was terminated on January 1, 1982, and claim for the payment of damages for delay from that time.

In principle, liability for damages arising from a tort shall be deemed to have occurred at the time of the completion of the argument in the fact-finding court. However, in calculating consolation money, the amount of consolation money shall be determined by considering all the circumstances that occurred at the time of the conclusion of the argument in the fact-finding court, and the national income level or monetary value, etc., which serves as the basis for the calculation of consolation money, should also be reflected at the time of the conclusion of argument. If there is a considerable change in the monetary value, etc. due to the lapse of three months at the time of the conclusion of the argument in the tort, the amount of consolation money shall be determined by additionally considering the changed monetary value, etc. as above. Such circumstance is clearly distinguishable from the existing circumstances, which serve as the basis for the calculation of consolation money at the time of the occurrence of the tort, and it may be deemed that there was a situation that occurred at the time of the conclusion of the argument in the first instance. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for consolation money shall not be deemed to have been 381,015,01.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to each of the corresponding amounts stated in the "amount of the winning in the judgment of the court below" and each of the corresponding amounts stated in the "amount of the winning in the judgment of the court of first instance" as cited in the "amount of the court of first instance" as stated in the following table to the plaintiffs, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 29, 201, which is the date of closing the argument of the court of first instance to October 13, 201, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum under the Civil Act, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, from October 13, 201, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, until the date of full payment; 20% per annum under the Civil Act, which is the date of the next decision of the court of first instance to the date of full payment; with respect to each of the corresponding amounts stated in the "amount of the winning in the "amount of the court of second instance" as stated.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since part of the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, it is unfair to accept part of the plaintiffs' appeal and revoke it, and order the defendant to pay the above money additionally recognized in the court of first instance. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the remaining appeal by the plaintiffs and the appeal by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judges and yellowization

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judge Cho Jinam