The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. An employer may enter into a multiple collective agreement which differs in time, contents, etc. by negotiating separately with multiple trade unions without simplification of bargaining windows as prescribed by Article 29-2(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”).

Meanwhile, Article 81(4) of the Trade Union Act provides that the act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union by an employee is one type of unfair labor practices by an employer.

The purpose of this is to restore the normal labor-management relations by excluding and correcting acts infringing the right to organize.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11281, Feb. 15, 2013). Considering the provision and purport of prohibiting such unfair labor practices, where an individual negotiation procedure is in progress pursuant to the proviso to Article 29-2(1) of the Trade Union Act and money and valuables are paid to members of the relevant trade union only in accordance with the terms of the collective agreement that the employer concluded with a specific trade union, the employer’s act of paying such money and valuables constitutes unfair labor practices if it is based on the intent to control or intervene

In such cases, whether an employer’s act constitutes unfair labor practice shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the background and name of payment of money and valuables, conditions added to payment of money and valuables, amount of money and valuables paid, timing or method of payment of money and valuables, details of negotiations with other trade unions, impact on the organization or operation of other trade unions, etc.

However, the establishment of unfair labor practices as such do not necessarily require the result of infringing the workers' right to organize.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do388 delivered on September 8, 2006, etc.). 2. A.

The lower court cited the reasoning of the first instance judgment.