(a) Requirements for an employer’s unfavorable disposition on the ground of a collective, monthly, or equal vacation of workers to constitute unfair labor practices;

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to view workers' collective monthly leave as a justifiable act in light of the fact that workers' collective monthly leave constitutes industrial action and is unlawful in time and procedure, and the result therefrom, etc.

A. In the exercise of the monthly leave right of workers under Article 47(1) of the Labor Standards Act, if workers were to take part in their monthly leave for other purposes, not in itself, it cannot be deemed a legitimate exercise of the right of leave. Thus, in order to constitute an unfair labor practice under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act by reason of collective monthly leave of workers, the act must be justified, and the act must first be for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions in relation to collective bargaining, and the time and procedure should be justified as being in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, and the method and manner should be within the reasonable scope, not accompanied by violence or destruction or other acts of high-level anti-sociality.

B. The case holding that even if the group monthly leave led by the plaintiff et al. was to be exercised formally, it is difficult to view the above acts of the plaintiff et al. as legitimate acts of the plaintiff et al. in light of the following, since the purpose of industrial action is to interfere with the normal operation of the work of the medical insurance association employed by the plaintiff et al., and the trade union, which the plaintiff et al. was the head of the branch, did not make a decision by the consent of a majority of the union members directly, secret, and secret, as well as by the consent of a majority of the union members in performing the above industrial action, since the report of labor dispute and the expiration of cooling period, etc. are not only illegal in terms of time and procedure, but also it causes enormous interference not only to the employer but also to the third party.

(b)Article 39 of the Trade Union Act, Article 47 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 3, Article 12, Article 14, and Article 16 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act;

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 1990 (Gong1990, 1306). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4006 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1654). Supreme Court Decision 91Do1051 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2184). Supreme Court Decision 91Do2323 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 719)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Medical Insurance Association and one other defendant assistant participants, the Dongyang General Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant assistant participants

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu23429 delivered on August 23, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

1. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the reasoning of the judgment below, based on macroscopic evidence, that the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 employed as an employee of the non-party Seoul Metropolitan Medical Insurance Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the non-party trade union in the long term) branch of the non-party Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party trade union") and worked as the head of the non-party trade union branch of the non-party trade union, pursuant to the resolution of the representative of the non-party trade union in 12 cities/Dos and the non-party trade union central operation committee of the non-party trade union and the non-party trade union, which interferes with the normal health insurance business of the local medical insurance association by the method of collective monthly leave of the union members, and therefore it is not erroneous for the court below to recognize the non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party trade union's non-party.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principle

(1) Article 47(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "an employer shall grant one day's paid leave to one month," and there are no special restrictions on this, barring special circumstances, an employee may exercise his/her monthly paid leave right on January 1. However, if an employee is able to take a monthly paid leave for any other purpose than his/her paid leave itself, it cannot be deemed a legitimate exercise of his/her paid leave right. Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act provides that an employee's act of giving disadvantage to the employee on the ground that the employee performed legitimate acts for the labor union's work. Thus, in order to constitute an unfair labor act on the ground that the act constitutes an unfair labor act, the act must be justified, and the industrial action should be conducted for the purpose of maintaining and improving working conditions in relation to the collective bargaining, which is justifiable under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, and the act must be accompanied by violence or destruction within the scope of 150,005).

(2) According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, although the collective monthly leave of this case led by the plaintiffs was to exercise monthly leave formally, it should be viewed as an industrial action in substance to accomplish their arguments such as the time of original adjudication by impeding the smooth operation of the intervenor union's business. As acknowledged by the records of this case, the non-party trade union does not make a decision with the consent of a majority of the union members under Article 12 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, as well as with the report of the labor dispute and the expiration of the cooling period under Articles 16 (1) and 14 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the above actions of the plaintiffs are not just because it is unlawful in time and procedure to apply the penal provisions under Articles 47 and 48 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act as unlawful, and thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs' act not only interfere with the business of the intervenor who is the employer but also caused to the third party.

(3) If so, the above group monthly leave cannot be seen as a legitimate exercise of the right to leave or a legitimate union activity. Rather, it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action stipulated in the Local Medical Insurance Association Operational Rules, and the judgment of the court below which held that the disciplinary action in January of each salary reduction against the plaintiffs by the intervenor union does not constitute an unfair labor practice is somewhat insufficient, but its conclusion is justifiable, and there is no reason to criticize this in the contrary purport.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)