A. In a case where a company posted a collective agreement and bylaws and takes measures to inform its employees, whether an employee may not assert the invalidity or refuse the application thereof (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that the distribution cannot be justified if the distribution of printed materials was carried out closely on the factory without the employer's permission and without the employer's permission, which contains any false information in the printed materials, and the contents that slander the user by pointing out false information in the printed materials;

(c) The case holding that since the representative of the trade union, who was subject to the disposition of suspension of attendance, intends to attend the work to resist the suspension of the employer's attendance, the plaintiff's act of obstructing the management worker from attending the work of the above representative and inciting other workers is unfair;

D. Whether to bear the burden of proof on the fact that the trade union is an unfair act under the Trade Union Act (=worker)

A. If a company posted a collective agreement and bylaws and took measures so that its employees may become known, even if the employees did not notify the employees thereof separately, or the employees did not know of the content thereof, the employees shall not assert or refuse the application thereof.

B. The case holding that, where the distribution of printed materials constitutes a legitimate trade union's activities, an employer may not prohibit the distribution of printed materials for this reason even if the employer adopts the permission system in the rules of employment, etc., but the distributed printed materials are not only without the employer's permission, but also contain the contents of slandering the company by pointing false facts, and thus, there is a concern that workers might lead to an appropriate improvement against the employer, and that the said printed materials are distributed closely to the employer's factory, not directly to the employees, and thus, there is a specific risk infringing the employer's right to manage the facilities and impairing the order of work, and even if the distribution period of printed materials was the election campaign period for the representative of the trade union, the act of distribution

(c) The case holding that even if a representative of the trade union was ordered to suspend his/her attendance from the employer, he/she is allowed to enter a factory to enter the trade union office, etc. located in the employer's factory for the purpose of the trade union's activities, but the above representative did not intend to enter the employer's factory for the purpose of the trade union's activities, but rather intended to attend the workplace to comply with the disposition of suspension of the employer's attendance, and therefore, the plaintiff's act of obstructing the management officer who prevented the above representative from

D. The fact that it is an unfair labor practice under the Trade Union Act is, in principle, the burden of proof to the worker who asserts it.

(d)Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu147 delivered on October 11, 198, 91Nu4164 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992,139). Supreme Court Decision 91Do1666 delivered on September 10, 1991 (Gong1991,2565) decided November 8, 1991 (Gong1992,152) (Gong152). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2557 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong191,2259)

Plaintiff

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Attorney Kim Jong-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu18021 delivered on February 13, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below as to the reasons and reasons why the defendant joining the defendant company (hereinafter referred to as the "the intervenor") imposed disciplinary action against the plaintiff, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

The purport of the court below that the intervenor posted a collective agreement and regulations and notified the employees under his control is that the court below's notice so that the employees under his control can be known by posting it, and thus, the action recognized by the court below is not unlawful, and as long as the intervenor took measures to let the employees under his control notify the collective agreement and regulations, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff did not separately notify the plaintiff, or even if the plaintiff did not know the contents of the collective agreement and regulations, the plaintiff cannot assert or refuse the application thereof.

There is no reason to discuss the issues of the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

On the second ground for appeal

1. If the distribution of printed materials constitutes a legitimate trade union's activities, an employer may not prohibit the distribution of printed materials for this reason even if the rules of employment adopted the permission system. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the printed materials distributed by the plaintiff in this case are not only without the intervenor's permission, but also contain the contents that slander the intervenor by pointing out false facts, and thus may cause workers to be informed of the right to the intervenor, who is the employer. In addition, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the above printed materials are distributed closely to the Daejeon Factory of the intervenor, who is the employer, rather than directly to the workers, and thus, this constitutes a violation of the intervenor's right to manage the intervenor's facilities and specific danger that disturbs the order of the intervenor's work. Thus, even if the distribution period of printed materials was the representative of the trade union, the above distributed materials cannot be justified. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is justified

2. Even if the representative of the trade union was ordered to suspend his/her attendance from the employer, he/she may enter a factory to enter the trade union office located in the employer's factory for the purpose of the trade union's activities. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the non-party 1 did not intend to enter the Daejeon Factory of the intervenor company to conduct the activities of the trade union, but did not want to enter the intervenor company's Daejeon Factory for the purpose of demanding the suspension of the intervenor's attendance. Thus, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff's act of obstructing the intervenor's management officers who prevented the non-party 1 from attending the labor union and instigating other workers

3. The fact that it is an unfair labor practice under the Trade Union Act is, in principle, the burden of proof to the alleged employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2557, Jul. 26, 1991). Thus, in this case, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of unfair labor practice and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. There is

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)