(영문) 부산지방법원 2009.7.10.선고 2009구합2291 판결

1. The defendant's disposition to return a trade union establishment report against the plaintiff on December 30, 2008 is revoked. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고(설립 당시의 명칭은 A'이다)는 2008. 12. 22. 부산지역 택시노동자들의 근로환경개선과 지위 향상 등을 목적으로 하여 설립되었는데, 원고의 구성원으로는 주식회사 ◆택시(이하 '◆택시'라 한다) 소속 근로자인 ●, 부산지역 택시업계에 종사하기 위하여 구직중인 C1, C2 등 3인이 있고, 이 대표자인 위원장으로 선임되었다. 한편, 원고는 2009. 2. 10. 규약을 개정하면서 그 명칭을 현재의 명칭으로 변경하고, 제6조를 “본 조합은 부산광역시 지역 택시업계 노동자로서 기업별 노조에 가입되지 아니하고 (이하 생략)”라는 내용으로 개정하였다.

나. 원고의 설립 당시 ◆택시에는 전국택시산업노동조합 부산지역본부 ◆택시 분회가 설립되어 있었다(◆택시에 근무하던 원고의 구성원인 ●은 위 노동조합에서 제명된 상태이다).

다. 원고는 2008. 12. 24. 피고에게 규약을 첨부하여 노동조합의 형태를 지역노조로, 주된 사무소의 소재지를 부산 사하구 괴정동 ○로조합원 수를 3명으로, 대표자를 ●으로 하는 내용의 노동조합설립신고서를 제출하였는데, 피고는 2008. 12. 30. 원고에 대하여, ① 원고가 구직중인 실업자 2인을 구성원으로 포함함으로써 근로자가 아닌 자의 가입을 허용하고 있는 것은 원고 규약 제6조의 조합원 자격요건에도 맞지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(이하 '노조법'이라고만 한다) 제2조 제4호 단서 (라)목에 해당하고(노조법 제12조 제3항 제1호의 반려사유), ② 원고가 설립하고자 하는 노동조합이 기존의 '전국택시산업노동조합 부산지역본부 ◆택시 분회'와 비교하여 조직대상을 같이하는 노동조합이어서 노조법 부칙(1997. 3. 13. 법률 제5310호 ; 이하 같다) 제5조 제1항에 해당한다는(부칙 제5조 제2항의 반려사유) 이유로 노동조합설립신고서를 반려하는 이 사건 처분을 하였고, 이 사건 처분서는 같은 날 원고에게 송달되었다.

D. On February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff (the representative) dissatisfied with the instant disposition and submitted a written objection to the Defendant, and on February 20, 2009, the Defendant responded to the reply that “the Plaintiff (the representative) would not accept the objection.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Determination on this safety defense

(1) The defendant's assertion

Although the Plaintiff filed a written objection against the instant disposition on February 16, 2009, it is merely an expression of opinion claiming the illegality of the instant disposition as the Plaintiff’s own, and it cannot be deemed a claim for administrative appeal, which is an essential act. Thus, the date of the instant disposition, which is December 30, 2008, was served on the Plaintiff around that time, and the instant disposition was served on the Plaintiff. The instant lawsuit was filed only on April 23, 2009, where the period for filing the lawsuit under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act had lapsed, and is unlawful.

(2) Determination

In light of the purport of Articles 19 and 23 of the Administrative Appeals Act and the purpose of the administrative appeal system, a request for administrative appeal, which is a requirement of an administrative litigation, is deemed to be a written act that does not require strict form. Thus, if a document seeking cancellation or change of the disposition is submitted from a person whose rights or interests are infringed due to an unlawful and unfair administrative disposition, it shall be deemed to be a request for administrative appeal under Article 18 of the Administrative Litigation Act, regardless of the title and the institution which has submitted the statement, and if it is possible to correct the defective matter, it shall be deemed to be unlawful only when the correction is impossible or non-compliance with the order of correction. Furthermore, even if the purport of the written request is unclear because it does not have general legal knowledge and knowledge, it shall be interpreted and processed as an administrative agency's interest as far as possible in the written request (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du2621, Jun. 9, 200; 209Du209, Feb. 16, 2009).

B. Judgment on the merits

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The "worker" in the main sentence of subparagraph 4 (d) of Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act includes a person seeking. If a plaintiff with the nature of a regional trade union includes a person seeking to find a job, the person seeking to find a job also constitutes a worker under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and it does not constitute Article 2 subparagraph 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and the trade union which the plaintiff intends to establish is a primary regional trade union and is a member of the plaintiff.

Article 5 (1) of the Addenda to the Trade Union shall not be deemed to fall under Article 5 (1) of the same Act, since the actual tax rate is different compared with the taxi branch of the Busan District Headquarters of the Korea Taxi Industry Trade Union, which is established in the taxi working in this case.

(2) Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form. (Omission)

(3) Determination

(A) The Labor Standards Act was enacted for the purpose of regulating individual labor-management relations from the viewpoint of "whether there is a need to directly protect a person who provides labor to a person who actually provides labor". However, the Labor Standards Act was established for the purpose of regulating collective labor-management relations between labor suppliers, and its legislative purpose is to differently define the concept of workers according to the above legislative purpose, and unlike the case of a company-level trade union with a certain employer as a partner qualification, in the case of an industrial, occupational, and regional trade union with a certain employer's subordinate relationship with an employer, the proviso to Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the Trade Union Act is established for the purpose of regulating a specific labor-management relationship. The proviso to Article 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the Labor Relations Act is established for the purpose of regulating a labor-management relationship from the perspective of "whether it is necessary to directly protect a person who provides labor by the State's management and supervision." Thus, the proviso to Article 2 subparag. 14 (d) of the Labor Union Act does not apply to a person who does not temporarily engage in a certain labor-level with three (2).

(B) Article 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "workers may freely organize a trade union or join it." Article 5 (1) of the Addenda provides that "in cases where a trade union is organized in a business or workplace, it shall not establish a new trade union that shall be organized with the trade union until December 31, 2009, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 5, if the trade union is organized in a business or workplace, it shall not establish a new trade union that shall be organized with the trade union until December 31, 2009." It refers to a case where a company-level trade union is established or where it can be seen as equivalent.

In such a case, when determining whether a trade union to be newly established constitutes a new trade union that shares the same organizational targets with an existing trade union under Article 5 (1) of the Addenda to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it shall not be simply based on the formal provision on the organizational targets of the existing trade union. It shall be determined by the rules of the existing trade union and the rules of the trade union to be newly established, and comprehensively comparing the content on the organizational targets, the organizational targets to be decided by the organization, the substance and scope of the members of each trade union, etc., and whether a trade union to be newly established is a trade union of the same type as that of the existing trade union (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7975, Dec. 12, 2003). Even if a company-level trade union has already been established within a workplace, a trade union may be established without being subject to restrictions under Article 5 (1) of the Addenda

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 위 인정사실을 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 보면, 원고의 구성원인 ●이 근무하는 ◆택시에 설립되어 있는 '전국택시산업노동조합 부산지역본부 ◆택시 분회'는 기업별 노동조합이 아닌 산업별 노동조합의 성격을 가지는 것일 뿐만 아니라, 지역별 노동조합의 성격을 가지는 원고와 비교하여도 그 조직형태를 달리하는 것이어서, 원고는 노조법 부칙 제5조 제1항의 기존의 노동조합과 조직대상을 같이하는 새로운 노동조합에 해당하지 않는 것이므로, 피고는 원고가 노조법 부칙 제5조 제1항에서 정하는 기존의 노동조합과 조직대상을 같이하는 새로운 노동조합에 해당함을 이유로 원고의 노동조합설립신고서를 반려할 수도 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.