A. Whether a company's act of collectively refusing holiday work, which was customary in accordance with a collective agreement, without justifiable grounds, to accomplish his/her claim (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that the act of 70 or more trade union members interfere with the product transport business of the company or its agents by occupying the door of the company's factory and controlling vehicle access, exceeded the legitimate limits as an industrial action;

(c) The case holding that 80 or more union members enter the Republic of Korea of a political party to conduct a farming act as part of an industrial action, on the grounds that they intend to accomplish the claim of a trade union on working conditions by moving the place to a place where it is difficult to input the police force

A. In a collective agreement concluded between labor and management, if there are unavoidable circumstances in the course of work or if there is a failure in the production plan, etc., the employer company is allowed to conduct holiday work, and even if the company has actually conducted holiday work, the company's refusal of holiday work ordered by the company in group without any justifiable reason for the purpose of accomplishing its claim constitutes an industrial action under Article 3 of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act, as it impedes the normal operation of the company's business.

B. In a case where the Defendant conspired with 70 trade union members to occupy the fixed door of the company's factory, sealed the company's factory with a prior lock, and obstructed the company's side or its agents' access to the company's vehicle used for transportation, in whole or in part, by controlling or preventing the company's access to the vehicle used for transportation mobilized by their agents or agents, thereby hindering the company's product transportation business, even if such action was taken to control the company's intent to circumvent the strike decided by the trade union, the means or method is not only to passively obstruct the normal operation of the business, but also to actively interfere with the business by multiple power or physical force, and thus, it goes beyond the legitimate limit as an industrial action.

(c) The case holding that 80 or more union members including the defendant enter a political party into the part of an industrial action, with the primary purpose of accomplishing the claim of the labor union on working conditions against the employer by moving the place to a place where it is difficult to input the police force, and the act of farming in the field is part of an industrial

(a)Article 3(a) of the Trade Dispute Adjustment Act; Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 34, (b) of the Trade Union Act; Article 13 of the Trade Union Act; Article 2 of the Trade Union Act; Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Article 20 of the Trade Union Act; (c) Article 12(3) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act; Article 2 of the Trade Union Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Do755 Decided July 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1745)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Yong-il

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No822 delivered on April 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

95 days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant and defense counsel

If the evidence adopted by the first instance judgment as cited by the court below is examined by comparing the records and records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant, as the chairperson of the non-indicted stock company (hereinafter referred to as the "company"), did not go through the cooling period and did not report the occurrence of labor disputes to the Labor Relations Commission, and that an industrial action was conducted without the consent of the union members (in particular, the union members working at the Pyeongtaek Factory and Ansan Storage Station, in accordance with the defendant's instructions, caused the industrial action to refuse holiday work) without the consent of the union members. In addition, if there is an inevitable circumstance in the collective agreement concluded between the labor and the management, or if it is necessary for business such as a failure in the production plan, etc., it is stipulated that the employer company may conduct holiday work in a manner that the worker company would do so, even if it was actually on holiday work, and therefore, it constitutes an industrial action under Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, and therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rules of evidence or industrial action.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant and defense counsel

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance is examined by comparing the records with the records, the defendant's intent to commit the crime of causing property damage of this case can be sufficiently recognized, and since the above act of causing property damage constitutes a justifiable act or a self-help act that does not violate social rules, there is no reason to view that the court below erred by violating the rules of evidence or omitting judgment on this point.

3. Determination as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal Nos. 3(a) and (b) and No. 3

As duly established by the court below, if the defendant conspired with 70 trade union members to occupy the fixed door of the company Pyeongtaek Factory as a real force and block it with a lock prepared in advance, and if the company security guards access the company's access to the vehicle for transportation, control the company's access to the vehicle partially or completely, prevent the company's agent from entering the vehicle for transportation, and interfere with the company's or agent's product transportation business by preventing the company's agent from participating in the company's product transportation, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the industrial action, even though the action was taken for the purpose of nullifying the strike decided by the trade union's power, such action was taken against the outside person to remove the product or control the company's will to continue business by substitute personnel, and it did not actively interfere with the normal operation of the company's business by passive means or methods, but it is beyond the legitimate limit as an act of dispute.

4. Determination on the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 3-C and No. 4 of the Defense Counsel’s ground of appeal

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance is examined by comparing the records and records as cited by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant and 40 union members occupy and use a corridor near the entrance of the 8th floor of the chamber of commerce and industry building for 12 consecutive days, and thereby interfere with the normal business of the employees of the staff of the detailed international law office located in the 8th floor of the same building by force. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of interference with business.

5. The defendant's ground of appeal No. 4 and the defense counsel's ground of appeal No. 5

According to Article 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union Act and Article 9-2 of the same Act, an administrative agency may require a trade union to submit and investigate its accounting status and other relevant documents even in cases where it is necessary to guide its accounting status or other operation, as well as to file a petition against the trade union. According to the relevant evidence and records, the demand of the administrative agency for submission of materials and investigation of duties against the trade union is in accordance with the above Act and subordinate statutes, and it does not appear to have been unlawful or unfair as a theory of lawsuit. Thus, there is no ground to see that the judgment below which found the defendant who rejected the investigation without submitting relevant documents was guilty of violating the legal principles as to Article 30 of the Trade Union

6. Judgment on the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 5

If 80 or more union members including the defendant enter the central party of the Peace Democratic Party, which is a place other than the workplace in question, and the nature of the evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that there was no purpose of claiming the workers' legitimate exercise of rights on the part of the Peace Democratic Party, and demanding the fact-finding and indicating the claim. However, it can be sufficiently recognized that the purpose of the lawsuit was to achieve the labor union's assertion as to working conditions against the employer by moving the place of the industrial action to a place where the police power is difficult to input. Thus, there is no reason to hold that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the act of dispute in the judgment below as part of the industrial action.

7. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)