[1] The meaning of "banking business" under Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[2] The case holding that a financial business operated by a local community credit cooperative, which is not the National Federation of Labor Relations and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, does not constitute a "banking business" under Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[3] Criteria for determining whether collective bargaining is subject to collective bargaining

[4] Requirements for a trade union to be justified in a strike

[1] In light of the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2, Articles 5 and 14 of the Banking Act, and Article 5 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, the term "banking business under Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act" means the central bank and commercial banks, local banks, and general banks such as domestic branches of foreign banks, special banks established under special Acts, and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives under Article 5 of the Banking Act, and the credit business division of the National Federation of Community Credit Cooperatives under Article 5 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act.

[2] The case holding that a financial business operated by a local community credit cooperative, which is not the National Federation of Korea, does not constitute a "banking business" under Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[3] Whether a case constitutes collective bargaining is subject to collective bargaining should be determined in light of the purport of guaranteeing workers’ collective bargaining rights under Article 33(1) of the Constitution and Article 29 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act. As such, matters that an employer may dispose of as matters concerning the labor conditions of workers who are members or other matters concerning the management of the pertinent collective labor-management relations constitutes collective bargaining matters subject to collective

[4] In order for a trade union to be justified, the principal agent of the trade union shall be a person to be the subject of collective bargaining, and the trade union and the employer’s negotiation process shall take place with the aim of enhancing the economic status of workers, such as improving their working conditions, from the standpoint of the trade union and the employer. An industrial action shall not be deemed unlawful as a whole, even if certain minority workers committed an act of violence, etc., even if they were to have committed an unlawful act of violence, etc., by refusing to conduct collective bargaining with regard to a specific demand regarding the improvement of workers’ working conditions, or by expressing or impliedly opposing such demand in collective bargaining, barring any special circumstances. The means and methods should be in harmony with the employer’s property rights, as well as shall not infringe upon other fundamental human rights.

[1] Articles 2, 5, and 14 of the Banking Act, Article 5 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Articles 2, 5, and 14 of the Banking Act, Article 5 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act, Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Article 29 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 3 of the Constitution / [4] Articles 2 subparagraph 6, 4, and 37 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act;

[3] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9177 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1199), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu4951 delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 3480), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4818 delivered on July 25, 200 (Gong203Ha, 1879, 19799) 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 1997 (Gong1990, 1306, 1990, 19929Du29499 delivered on October 12, 1990)

Park Dong-dong Saemaul Bank (Attorney Lee Chang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant Intervenor (Attorney Park Ho-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu263 delivered on July 4, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. According to subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 2, Article 5 and Article 14 of the Banking Act, the term "banking business" means lending of funds raised by bearing debts from many and unspecified persons through the receipt of deposits and issuance of securities and other bonds. Any person, other than the Bank of Korea and financial institutions which are juristic persons operating banking business regularly and systematically, shall not use the word "banking business or banking business" in his trade name, and shall not use the word "banking business or banking business" in his trade name, and the credit business sector of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives shall be regarded as one financial institution. Article 5 of the Community Credit Cooperatives Act provides that the credit business sector of the Federation under Article 54 (1) 5 (c) (limited to internal exchange business) and (e) of the same Act shall be deemed as one financial institution under Article 2 of the Banking Act and Article 11 of the Bank of Korea Act, and Article 71 (1) 4 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Labor Cooperatives Act"), the National Federation and the National Federation of Korea under Article 5 of the Special Banking Act and the National Federation Act.

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the financial business operated by the plaintiff, other than the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives, does not fall under the banking business under Article 71 (1) 4 of the Trade Union Act is proper, and there is no violation of the law as to the interpretation and application of Article 71 (1) of the Trade Union Act as alleged in the

2. Whether a case constitutes collective bargaining is subject to collective bargaining should be determined in light of the purport of guaranteeing the right to collective bargaining by workers under Article 33(1) of the Constitution and Article 29 of the Trade Union Act. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the matters that an employer may dispose of as a matter of collective bargaining, such as the labor conditions for workers who are members or other matters concerning the management of the pertinent collective labor-management relations

In the same purport, the court below recognized the fact that most of the matters that the sub-branch of the Korea Saemaul Savings Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Trade Union") requested the plaintiff to conduct collective bargaining are matters concerning standards and procedures for personnel such as disciplinary action, dismissal, etc., working conditions, activities of trade unions, provision of convenience to trade unions, procedures for collective bargaining and industrial action, etc., and it is proper to determine that such matters constitute collective bargaining subject to collective bargaining, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal

3. In order for a trade union to be justified, the principal agent of the trade union shall be a person to be the subject of collective bargaining, and the trade union and the employer’s negotiation process shall arise from the purpose of enhancing the economic status of workers, such as improving their working conditions, from the standpoint of the trade union and the employer. An industrial action shall not be deemed unlawful as a whole, even if certain minority workers committed an act of violence, etc., even if they were to have committed an unlawful act of violence, etc., even if they were to have refused to conduct collective bargaining with regard to a specific demand regarding the improvement of workers’ working conditions, or expressed or impliedly opposed to such demand in collective bargaining, barring any special circumstance, and the means and methods should be in harmony with the employer’s property rights, as well as shall not infringe other fundamental human rights.

In the same purport, the court below affirmed the fact that the plaintiff declared rejection against the specific matters for which the labor union requested collective bargaining and both parties maintained arguments contrary to each other, and that the labor union commenced a strike that completely suspends the provision of labor to the plaintiff according to the result of the trade union's vote by union members. Although certain union members' illegal acts were committed, the industrial action by the labor union is justified in both the subject, purpose, commencement period, procedure, means and method, etc. of the industrial action, and the defendant joining the defendant et al.'s failure to perform the duty to provide labor to the plaintiff to participate in such industrial action is legitimate, and therefore, it is legitimate that the dismissal of the plaintiff pursuant to the disciplinary procedure by the defendant joining the defendant et al. on the ground that the plaintiff did not perform the duty to provide labor constitutes an unfair labor act on the ground that the plaintiff performed a legitimate act for the labor union's business. There is no violation of the law as to the interpretation and application

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)