(a) The case holding that it constitutes an unfair industrial action that allows partners to take monthly leave in a group in order to take advantage of the favorable position in the negotiation for renewal of a collective agreement with an employer;

B. Purport of a collective agreement that requires prior consultation with the labor union and “pre-consultation” and whether a disciplinary dismissal disposition can be deemed null and void on the ground that it did not undergo prior consultation (negative)

(a) The case holding that it constitutes an unfair industrial action that allows partners to take monthly leave in a group in order to take advantage of the favorable position in the collective renewal negotiation with the employer;

B. The purport of the collective agreement, which requires the “prior consultation” and the “prior consultation”, is to prevent an employer from impeding the normal activities of a trade union due to arbitrary exercise of personnel rights against executive officers, such as executive officers, branch heads, and station members of a trade union, in light of the overall structure and content of the collective agreement and the practice of labor and management, it is reasonable to deem that the employer has an opportunity to present his/her opinion to the trade union, and that it is merely merely that the employer has an opportunity to present his/her opinion to consider the opinion presented from the trade union as reference materials. Therefore, it cannot be said that a disciplinary action against an employee was taken without the “prior consultation” as seen above.

(a) Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, Article 47 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 27 of the same Act, and Article 36 of the Trade Union Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do2852 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong1991,907) 91Do2323 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,719) 91Nu10473 delivered on March 13, 1992 (Gong1992,1324) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da13400 delivered on September 22, 1992 (Gong192,2963) 92Da18542 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong192,293) 92Da32074 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193,435)

Plaintiff

Medical Insurance Association (Attorney Park Young-ok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 91Na14949 delivered on July 2, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplement).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while the plaintiff was elected as the head of the branch office of the Si/Gun/Gu regional medical insurance union after becoming a member of the defendant medical insurance association, the above trade union ordered the defendant union to take a collective monthly leave in order to occupy favorable status in the collective renewal negotiation with the representative director of the Si/Gun/Gu regional medical insurance association within 29 Si/Gun/Gu regional medical insurance association. Despite the fact that the defendant union's 44 employees did not encourage the defendant union to take a collective monthly leave, the court below decided that the defendant union's 29 members among the 44 employees of the defendant union was suspended from conducting a monthly leave on May 23, 1990. On May 24, 190 following the day on which the monthly leave was conducted, the court below decided that the defendant union's act of failing to take a corrective measure against the defendant union's 1's union's employees constitutes a legitimate disciplinary action against the defendant union's union's abuse of its standing rights, not a legitimate disciplinary action against the defendant union's strike.

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and collective monthly leave as above are industrial actions and such industrial actions are not legitimate, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground to hold that there is no violation of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The purpose of the "pre-consultation" in Article 40 of the collective agreement of the defendant union is to prevent a trade union from undermining the normal activities of the trade union due to arbitrary exercise of personnel rights by an employee union against executive officers, such as executive officers, branch heads, and station members of the trade union in light of the overall structure and content of the collective agreement and the practice of the labor and management, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant union has an opportunity to present opinions to the trade union, and that it does not merely require the defendant union to take into account the opinions presented from the trade union as reference materials, and that the disciplinary dismissal disposition against the plaintiff was made without the above "pre-consultation" cannot be deemed null and void. The judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the personnel consultation provisions in the collective agreement as pointed out therein.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)