205Gaz. 14459 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

00Electronic Stock Company

Additional Dong in Geumcheon-gu Seoul

Representative Director 000

Attorney Cho Young-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. Kim 00 (00000 - 00000)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Woldong

2. Maximum00 (0000 - 000000)

Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jeondong

3. Demotion (00000 - 00000)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Daelimdong

4. Prostitution (00 million won - 0000000)

Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mosan 2dong

5. Maximum00 (0000 - 000000)

Additional Dong in Geumcheon-gu Seoul

6.00 (00000 - 000000)

Tongcheon-gu Obcheon-gu Obcheon-dong

7. Kim 00 (00000 - 00000)

Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mosandong

8. Fixed 00 (00000 - 00000)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government New Streetdong

9. Nowon00 (00000 - 00000)

Seoul Seodaemun-gu Hongdong

10. Kim 00 (0000 - 000000)

Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Guro-dong

k. Prostitution (00 0000 - 000000)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Daelimdong

12.O00 (0000 - 000000)

Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mosandong

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 et al.

April 5, 2007

April 26, 2007

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

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendants: (a) served the Plaintiff KRW 1,327,064,475; and (b) served the copy of the instant complaint on each of the Plaintiff.

C. The interest shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-1 through 12, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 8-1 through 6, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 11-1 through 33, Gap evidence 12-1 through 3, Gap evidence 16-1 through 9, Gap evidence 17-1 through 17, Eul evidence 22, Eul evidence 4-1 through 14, Eul evidence 6-1 through 5, Eul evidence 11 through 13.

A. The status of the party (1) The Plaintiff is a company established on October 27, 1996 and whose main business is the manufacture, sale, export, and import of satellite broadcasting communications equipment including electronic equipment and satellite radio (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”).

(2) The Defendants are under the jurisdiction of the Democratic Labor Relations Commission, the Seoul District 00 Efranchis Association (hereinafter referred to as the “00 Effors Association”). Defendant 100, the Kim00 is the full-time workers of the Plaintiff company, Defendant Kim 00, the maximum of 00, and Lee 00 is the contractual workers of the Plaintiff company (the contract with Defendant Lee 00 was terminated on July 28, 2005), and the rest of the Defendants are Kim Nenn.com Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nn.”).

The contract with Defendant 00 was terminated on April 30, 2005, and the contract with Defendant 00 was terminated on May 4, 2005) to which the contract officer belongs (the contract with Defendant 00 was dispatched to the Plaintiff Company as a service worker.)

B. (1) The Plaintiff Company’s organization (1) was dispatched most of its production workers in the form of a contract from the aforesaid affiliated seacom, etc., and repeated dismissal and dispatch for reasons such as expiration of the contract term and the poor working attitude. Defendant Kim 00 via a democratic labor force on June 30, 2005, thereby violating the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers against the Plaintiff Company and the Seoul Central Labor Office of Seoul Central Labor on June 30, 2005.

After filing a petition by suspicion, it was decided to join the Korean Metal Trade Union, an industrial union, and the plaintiff company's side and the strike.

(2) Accordingly, on July 4, 2005, Defendant Kim 00 received an application for joining from the Seoul Southern Branch of the Korea Metal Workers' Union, and distributed the said application to 180 workers from the second floor productionra in the Plaintiff's workplace on July 5, 2005, and made 00 electronic meetings with signature and seal affixed thereon.

(3) As a result of a general meeting held on July 9, 2005, Defendant Kim 00, Defendant Kim 00, Defendant Choi 00, Defendant Kim 00, Labor 00, and Labor 00, as the chief president, as the chief president, the top president of the branch, the top president of the branch, the top president of the branch, and the top president, Kim 00, Kim 00, le00, and le00 were elected respectively.

C. As a result of the investigation of the illegal use of temporary agency workers by filing a petition from a democratic labor group, etc., the Seoul District Labor Office decided on July 29, 2005 that the temporary agency workers employed by the Plaintiff Company should be placed by the employees belonging to the Plaintiff Company, such as the right to work placement, change, supervision, work instruction, right to extend, holidays, night work, and management of exit and departure from work. Thus, the temporary agency workers cannot be dispatched to the direct production process of the manufacturing industry under Article 5 (4) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers. Thus, the Plaintiff Company's use of the temporary agency workers after being dispatched to the Plaintiff company for the direct production process of the manufacturing industry in violation of this Act is determined as illegal and ordered the Plaintiff to submit an improvement plan pursuant to Article 37 of the Act and Article 20 of the Rules on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers.

D. (1) Even though the Seoul Central Labor Office decided that the Plaintiff Company's employment type of the Plaintiff Company was illegal temporary placement, the Plaintiff Company planned full contract workers and production on commission through Chinese local workers instead, and continued to terminate the contract for the existing workers, the 00 EM was an assembly claiming that the termination of the contract would be unfair, centering on the termination party before the Plaintiff Company's work time from August 8, 2005 to the work hour. In particular, at an assembly held on August 17, 2005, the dismissed company had the right to work in the Plaintiff Company for 00 minutes with the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff Company attempted to enter the Plaintiff Company as a non-regular worker from 00 EM to 00 minutes with the Plaintiff Company's employees for the purpose of preventing their entry into the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff Company failed to comply with the Plaintiff Company's 20-day resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff Company's worker at the work site without any specific resolution for 00-day withdrawal from the Plaintiff Company's work site.

In order to conduct regular work, "the removal of non-regular workers and the suspension of dismissal", "the worker in good faith in responding to the negotiation", "the worker in the steel industry refuses the company's work order, and the other worker's work or does not take out the products or materials at the same time," and the industrial action (hereinafter "the industrial action of this case") was conducted in the way of promoting relief with the second-story producer, promoting relief, and putting out the summary of labor. (3) The plaintiff company applied to the Seoul Southern District Court for the injunction against interference with the business against the 00 Electronic Subdivision, and the above court decided to suspend the farming of the plaintiff company's company's building on October 12, 2005, and forced the industrial action of this case to be executed on October 17, 2005 in accordance with the above decision.

E. Circumstances after industrial actions were conducted

(1) Criminal punishment (A) for the Defendants

Upon the commencement of the industrial action in this case, the plaintiff company filed a complaint with the Seoul Southern Police Station on the crime of interference with business, etc. against the plaintiff's 00 electronic subdivisions including the defendant Kim 00, 200, 200, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00 on November 10, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2005, 2712, 2006, 300, 2 years, 2 years, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 1 year, 1 year, 1 year, 1 year, 200, 1, 100, 1, 100, 1, 200, 1, 200, 205, 20 years, 3 years, 20 years, 20.

(B) On October 27, 2006, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office for the punishment against the Plaintiff Company and its representative director, Nonparty 00, and the representative director, Nonparty 00 of the Plaintiff Company and its representative director, despite the fact that the Plaintiff Company was not provided with temporary placement services for the direct production process of the manufacturing industry, the Plaintiff Company was dispatched to its employees from the Human Marinecom for the production process of the electronic apparatus, which is the direct production process (prefabricated, inspection, packing).

(2) After the Labor Relations Commission’s decision issued a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 on the grounds of criminal facts that the Plaintiff Company had engaged in the instant industrial action, the Plaintiff Company did not enter into a contract with the Defendants, and Defendant Kim 00, 200, 300, 00, 000, 00, 00, 00, 00, 300, 00, 00, 00, 100, 100, etc. filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission. However, on February 7, 2006, only Defendant Kim 0 was recognized as unfair and unfair, and all of the remaining Defendants’ applications were dismissed or dismissed.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Whether the industrial action in this case is justifiable (1) Article 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that an employer shall not claim compensation for damages to a trade union or worker in the event of damages caused by collective bargaining or industrial action under this Act. However, the damages exempt from civil liability pursuant to the above legal provisions are limited to " damages caused by a legitimate industrial action", and the industrial action of workers shall be recognized as legitimate, first, the subject shall be eligible to be the subject of collective bargaining, second, the purpose of the industrial action shall be to form autonomous bargaining between the labor and management to improve working conditions, and third, the employer shall commence collective bargaining upon the specific request for the improvement of working conditions of workers, unless there are special circumstances. Fourth, the means and methods should be harmonized with the employer's property rights, as well as the exercise of violence (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001, etc.).

(2) In addition, Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that the definition of a labor dispute refers to the state of dispute caused by disagreements between the parties to the labor relationship regarding "decision on terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, etc." (Article 2 subparag. 5), and industrial action refers to the act conducted to accomplish the allegations by the parties to the labor dispute, which caused the above labor dispute (Article 2 subparag. 6). Thus, the purpose of industrial action is to determine terms and conditions of employment between the trade union and the employer. The purpose of industrial action is to determine terms and conditions of employment between the trade union and the employer, and it is not possible to conduct industrial action in order to accomplish the so-called "right dispute" that can be resolved by judicial relief procedures due to the interpretation and application of the rights of workers already established by the laws and regulations governing working conditions, collective agreements, and labor contracts. (3) However, according to the above basic facts, it is difficult to recognize that the industrial action in this case's requirements are not legitimate or legitimate.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants were placed in an imminent situation in which the Defendants were unable to take a normal procedure of industrial action when they came to know that the Plaintiff Company intended to dismiss most of its members by way of termination of the contract, etc. However, even if the Defendants did not take the voting procedure under Article 41(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act prior to the commencement of industrial action, if it is interpreted that the democratic decision-making process of the union members is merely a defect in the process of forming the internal intent of the trade union, and that the legitimacy of industrial action is not lost, it would result in the acceptance of the method of proxy voting, public disclosure resolution, ex post facto resolution, and consent, etc. by delegation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001). Therefore, the urgent situation in which the voting procedure may be omitted in the industrial action should be strictly construed, and there is no evidence that there is no time to deem that there is no reason to deem the Defendants’ assertion in this case.

3. Reversion of liability;

A. Legal doctrine

The acts of executive officers of a trade union led by planning, instructing, guiding, etc. of an illegal industrial action shall be deemed an act as an organization in addition to the act as an organization in a single case. In general, considering the intrinsic characteristics of the act of collective strike by which an industrial action is organized and grouped with the suspension of labor for an individual worker, an individual shall be held liable for civil damages based on the plan, direction, and instruction of an illegal industrial action in addition to the liability of the union (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da32828, 32835 delivered on March 25, 1994).

B. Defendant Kim 00, largest0, 00, Kim 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 000, and 00, the Defendants are in the position of the president of the division, the chief president of the division, the chief president of the division, and the executive director of the division, and planned the industrial action of this case by deciding on the industrial action through a meeting, and were in charge of leading and leading the industrial action such as checking the status of the industrial action and spreading guidelines to the union members. As seen above, the Defendants are liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff Company due to the industrial action of this case, which failed to meet each of the legitimate requirements for

C. Defendant 00, 000

The plaintiff company asserts that the above defendants were actively engaged in the industrial action of this case as the members of the 00 Eths Association. Therefore, according to the evidence No. 22 of this case, it can be acknowledged that the defendant 00 was sentenced to a fine of 1,00,000 won in August of 2006 due to the crime of interference with business following the illegal occupancy of production facilities at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 23, 2006. However, the above facts alone are difficult to deem that the above defendants led to the planning and direction of the industrial action of this case. Rather, according to each of the evidence No. 11-1-21 of this case, the above defendants did not assume any particular duties in the trade union of this case, but merely participated in the industrial action of this case with other subdivision members. Thus, the plaintiff company's liability as to the above defendants' liability is without merit.

A. Legal doctrine

In order to recognize liability for damages caused by a tort, the damage caused by a tort must have actually occurred, and even if the tort is recognized and the damage is presumed to have occurred, the claim for damages cannot be accepted unless there is no assertion or proof of the type, scope and amount of the damage.

B. Whether loss was incurred due to the decline in sales (1) Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that ① the instant industrial action caused enormous production disruptions to the Plaintiff from August 2005 to October 2005, ② the Plaintiff did not supply at least 186,070 satellite radio stations that had already been ordered, ③ Meanwhile, the profit per satellite radio was KRW 26,925, and ④ eventually, the instant industrial action lost sales revenue equivalent to KRW 5,009,934,750 (186,070 x 26,925) due to the instant industrial action.

(2) The premise for the recognition of damages

According to evidence No. 12-1, evidence No. 17 and evidence No. 22 of this case, it can be acknowledged that the act of this case occurred on August 24, 2005 and caused 55 days to the work of the plaintiff company's producer until the compulsory dissolution by governmental authority on Oct. 17, 2005. However, the plaintiff company concluded a satellite supply contract with the plaintiff's Digital Satellite (Sirius) which is the U.S. Digital Satellite Broadcasting Business Operator, and the manufacturer's adaptation (ODM and Original Demal 9). The fact that the plaintiff company did not have any other sales channel of this case. The defendant company's order No. 1 and No. 3 did not have any dispute over the plaintiff's industrial action since it was impossible to use the radio product of this case for more than the ordered quantity of the defendant's industrial action on the ground that the plaintiff company's order No. 1 and No. 4 of this case's industrial action can not be seen as an additional loss due to meet the plaintiff's order No. 9.

The fact that the contract was concluded between AT and AT, and CV, on September 16, 2005, contracted for each of the above production lines, and the contract was concluded, and the part of the above production lines was contracted. ② On August 25, 2005, the Plaintiff Company extended the satellite radio sales unit price from USD 160 in the year 2004 to USD 60 in the present year due to competitors, etc., and the production cost of the Chinese competition company was merely 60 to 70% in the domestic market, and the Plaintiff Company asserted that the production limit was placed in the domestic market. ③ In addition, the Plaintiff Company asserted that the production price of the Chinese competition company fell from USD 160 in the year 204 to USD 70 in the present market.

9.6.6. 6. 72 of the official note sent to the 00 electronics, asserting that the benefit of USD 11. 72 in China from each production unit of satellite radio is realized, and that the domestic production group suffers loss of USD 4. 1, rather than the domestic production group. ④ As above, the unit price of satellite radio sales is lowered, the cost reduction pressure from overseas fishing continues to be reduced, and the cost reduction pressure from overseas fishing is low since 2004, and the production of satellite radio consignment production began on August 19, 2005, and 348,350 was produced in the second half of 2005, and 50 was expanded due to the expansion of Chinese production group.

According to the fact that domestic production was planned to reduce or close 10, 6. 8. 10, 50, 94 and 250, 250, 74 and 10. 80, 18 and 400, 74 and 18. 7, 10, 9 and 140, 10 and 540, 10 and 47, 10 and 500, 18 and 47, 10, 10 and 500, 10 and 500, 84 and 50,000,000,000,00 for 11, 50,000,000 and 5,000,000,000 and 5,000,000,000,000,000 and00,000,01 and06,00,00.

(C) If so, even if the industrial action in this case occurred and the satellite radio production at SDR in the Plaintiff Company’s workplace decreased, the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff Company did not supply orders from SDRs. Rather, it can be confirmed that the Plaintiff Company offsets all the production decrease in the Plaintiff Company’s workplace due to the increase in local consignment output for Atetex and Etex and Etcom, and met the order quantity from SDRs. Thus, even if the Plaintiff Company sought damages due to the increase in cost or delay in supply to SDRs during the process of fulfilling the order quantity by contract production, etc., it cannot be claimed for damages for sales profit reduction on the premise that it did not meet the order quantity due to production at the domestic workplace. Therefore, without examining the amount of satellite sales profit per radio satellite, the Plaintiff Company’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Whether damage was caused by damage to products

The Plaintiff claimed compensation for damages of KRW 10,819,00 [1,180 x 85,440 x 85,440 x 1,80 x 100 x 11,80 x 800 x 100 x 10% x 10% x 11,80 x 11,80 x x 180 x x 10 x x 100 x ], but there is no evidence to prove that the above products were destroyed. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to this part of the damages is without merit.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the industrial action of this case caused damage to the Plaintiff Company as alleged in the Plaintiff Company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims against the Defendants by the Plaintiff Company are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-won

Judge Rental-ho

Judges Spool