2012 Gohap3891 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

○○ Co., Ltd.

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sodo-dong 0

Representative Director ○ Kim

Law Firm LLC, Attorney Park Jae-soo

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

1. ○ trade union ○○○ headquarters;

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sodo-dong 0

Representative Chairman fixed 00

2. Fixed00 (68 - 1)

Mayang-si

3.00 (71 - 1)

Seoul

4. Kim 00 (68 - 1)

Seoul

5. Kim* (69 - 1)

Mayang-si

6.00(73-2)

Seoul

7.Regular00(70-1)

Seoul

8.Ger00 (66-1)

Seoul

9. CHAPTER* (70 - 1)

Seoul

10. This** (69 - 1)

Seoul

11. T& (73 - 1)

Seoul

12. 100 (71 - 1)

Sungnam-si

13.Water00 (77 - 1)

Seoul

14. Gambling and (74 - 1)

Mayang-si

15.Oize 00 (75 - 2)

Mayang-si

16. Kim & Kim (7 - 1)

Seoul

17. Kim Mete (75 - 2)

Mayang-si

The service places of Defendant 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17 by Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Do-dong 31, 1st-class trade union office

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant]

December 12, 2013

January 23, 2014

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendants are served on each plaintiff 19,510,220,00 won and a copy of the complaint of this case.

The amount shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a broadcasting business entity under the Broadcasting Act that runs broadcasting business and cultural service business, and the ○○○ Headquarters of Defendant ○○ Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ○○ Union”) is a trade union comprised of workers belonging to the Plaintiff. The rest of the Defendants are workers belonging to the Plaintiff and members in charge of the duties of the chairperson, the office chief, the bureau chief, and the executive secretary within the Defendant’s Trade Union.

B. Defendant Nowon-gu Seoul Branch, a labor union consisting of workers belonging to the Plaintiff’s headquarters, is the Seoul Branch of the Defendant Labor Relations Group on January 2012.

30. The fact that from around July 17 to around July 17 of the same year, a strike was conducted on the ground that the plaintiff's place of business "Seoul ○○ president and ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○)

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The strike of this case is unlawful as ‘the retirement of ○○ president' and ‘the retirement of ○○○○○○○○○’ that is irrelevant to working conditions and its purpose, and is also unlawful as well as its time, procedures, means and methods. Therefore, the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are liable to compensate for damages incurred by the strike of this case by each Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

3. Determination as to the occurrence of liability for damages

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On December 31, 1988, according to the ○○○ Promotion Association Act, Nonparty 1 is a corporation established by taking over the Plaintiff’s shares from Nonparty ○○○ Corporation, and holds 70% of the Plaintiff’s shares. The ○○ Promotion Association, as an organization established for the management of the Plaintiff, has the right to appoint and dismiss the Plaintiff’s president and has the right to deliberate and decide on matters such as the Plaintiff’s operation plan, management evaluation, etc. (Article 10 subparag. 6 through 8 of the same Act). The main business is to manage and supervise the Plaintiff’s management, and the executives are appointed by the ○○ Promotion Committee (Article 6 subparag. 4 and (5) of the ○○○ Promotion Act).

② Nonparty ○○ was appointed on February 26, 201 by the Plaintiff’s representative director (the president of the head office) at the ○○○○○○○○, the Plaintiff’s Cheongju branch office, and was reappointed on February 28, 2011.

B) ① On April 29, 2008, the initial appointment of the president, the Plaintiff broadcasted the program that deals with the Mad Cow Disease problem related to the resumption of the import of U.S. beef through “○○○○○,” which was the first appointment of the president. After broadcasting, the Plaintiff caused a large amount of social reflection, such as the opening of long-term candlelight demonstration in Seoul downtown. In relation to such a situation, in the latter part of 2008, ○○ Party, at the time of the second half of 2008, promoted the amendment of the press-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Broadcasting Act, newspapers, etc., which ○○ Party, as the basis for allowing large companies and newspaper companies to own their shares, three times of strike to oppose the amendment of the statutes from December 26, 2008 to July 24, 2009.

② On February 8, 2010, Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission”) appointed Nonparty 1 as the Plaintiff’s head of the Plaintiff’s news report * as the Plaintiff’s head of the production headquarters, and appointed Nonparty 0 as the Plaintiff’s president on February 26, 2010, asserted each of the above personnel as “stigsan by political power,” and formed a “Non-○○ Committee for the Number of Public Broadcasting ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and made it strongly against the Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter “Defendant Labor Relations Commission”). Accordingly, on March 11, 2010, Kim○ promised to assign * and lele 0 to work unrelated to news reports and programming, and decided to suspend Defendant Labor Relations’s act of working.

③ On March 17, 2010, the president of ○○○○○○○○○○, a president of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, opened the so-called 's speech’ to the effect that he left from the Plaintiff’s internal seat according to the direction of the office of the office of the president, and thereby, the Kim○○○○○○○○○○○’s appointment of the president of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was demanded to withdraw from the office of the office of the president. However, on March 19, 2010, the president of ○○○○○○○’s resignation, such as requesting the withdrawal of the office of the president and the filing of a complaint by the president of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on April 2, 2010, he requested the appointment of the president from around 10 to March 15, 2010.

④ On April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff applied for a provisional injunction against interference with business by the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap000 on April 27, 2010, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the suspension of the strike by the Defendant’s labor union. In addition, at the time when the Plaintiff led each of the above strike from 2008 to May 2010, part of the Defendant’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’

C) (1) The Plaintiff and Defendant Trade Union have been undergoing negotiations on the amendment of collective agreements since the second half of 2010. At the time, the issues were whether to introduce the general responsibility system and the amendment of the operating regulations of the ○○ Council. Defendant Trade Union opposed to the introduction of the general responsibility system for broadcast programming on the ground that the external pressure on broadcast programming is likely to occur compared to the existing responsibility system because ○○ Promotion Association appoints the head of the headquarters, and accordingly, the Plaintiff demanded the change of the provision on the right to demand the change of the position of reprimand (Article 10) among the operating regulations of the ○○ Council.

② Since January 14, 2011, the Plaintiff was undergoing negotiations and notified the termination of the collective agreement with respect to Defendant Labor Union on the same day, Defendant Labor Union notified the Plaintiff of the negotiations and labor disputes on the same day, and Defendant Labor Union ordered Kim ○○ to reverse the collective agreement for the reappointment of the president from around that time, Kim○’s appointment, which is the Plaintiff’s major news program after Kim○○ president’s appointment, avoided political and social sensitive reports on the basis of viewing rate in ○○○, which is the Plaintiff’s major news program. After the president’s appointment, the Plaintiff argued that he tried to force the appointment of Kim○○ president’s president’s president’s president’s president’s reappointment in Cheongdae Dae-dae, regardless of the problems of organization reorganization and personnel affairs of the officers, and that the Plaintiff was carrying out propaganda activities such as distributing the same contents to the officers of the Labor Union. Around February 2, 2011, the president of ○○ Kim○ Foundation’s reappointment’s office was presented to Nonparty 23.

② On February 21 to 22, 2011, Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment opposed to the Plaintiff’s reappointment of ○○○ and the Plaintiff’s above organizational reorganization and personnel measures, and around February 21, 201, Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment rejected the president of the Republic of Korea, “A person who refused to comply with the demand for resignation of ○○,” and “A demonstration demanding the resignation of ○○○” against forced abolition. 1 ③ After that, Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment resolved to relet ○○ as the representative director on August 1, 201, on the grounds that the resolution was adopted at the ○○○ Committee’s board of directors and the Plaintiff’ temporary general shareholders’ meeting to re-issue ○○ as the representative director, Defendant Trade Union demanded the withdrawal of ○○○ president on August 2, 2011 through May 5, 2011.

④ On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for a provisional injunction against obstruction of business operation on August 8, 2011, as the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court No. 2011Kahap000, and the provisional injunction against obstruction of business operation on August 8, 2011, the Plaintiff withdrawn each of the aforementioned demonstrations as the Defendant’s Trade Union’s suspension of demonstration.

⑤ On the other hand, a new collective agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Trade Union was concluded on October 17, 201. Under the new collective agreement, Article 21(3) of the existing collective agreement was deleted, and each company’s management should guarantee the authority of the head of the relevant bureau with respect to all the practical practices of formation, report, and production.

2) Until the commencement of the instant strike, “in-house conflicts related to broadcast programming” ○○ Unfair Report

① From August 2010 to August 2010, the appointment of the representative director of Kim○○○, Defendant’s union and its affiliated organizations, there have been many cases of unfair news reports, such as delaying the report compared to the competitive news media companies, intentionally reducing the amount and contents of the report.

② However, around that time, ○○○ was in fact, and ① about 10 days later than other media companies with respect to the suspicion of illegal civilian inspection by the Prime Minister’s office from ○○○, a program for filing a complaint on the Plaintiff’s current issues.

6. On July 2, 2010, after the contents of the report were broadcasted, the first report was made on July 2, 201, and on May 23, 201 through May 26, 201, the Minister’s personnel hearing conducted on May 23, 201, did not report at all other broadcasting companies on suspicions raised at the candidate hearing for the Minister, who had been conducted on May 23, 201, and on suspicions that ○○○ requested a meeting of the highest members of the Democratic Party, later than SBS, a competitor.

27. The Plaintiff’s first report was made (after the first report, on the grounds that the second head of the Plaintiff’s society is sensitive to the relevant news, which led to the reporter’s opposition, such as disclosure of the circumstances to the Director General of the news report) and (2) around November 26, 201, the Plaintiff did not report the same differently from other broadcasting companies in relation to holding a simultaneous meeting against the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Korea-U.S. FTA).

③ In addition, “○○○” issued a false report immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision) on the program related to ○○○○’s Mad Cow Disease. On November 1, 2012, on the ground that the Plaintiff distorted the purport of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment ordering the corrective report to 201Gahap000 on November 1, 2012 (see, e.g., Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2012Na00). However, in the appellate court of the instant case (Seoul High Court 2012Na00), the Plaintiff won the case, and the present case is continuing to be Supreme Court 2013Da00.

B) Personnel measures on the “○○” producer;

① As seen earlier, “○○○” aired the program on April 29, 2008, under the title “ safe from U.S. beef and Mad Cow Disease,” which is the subject of the program. For this reason, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a corrective statement on the grounds of ○○○, and as a result, filed a claim for a corrective statement or a counterargument report on a part of the broadcast content with Supreme Court Decision 2009Da000 Decided September 2, 201.

② In addition, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of innocence on December 2, 2010 as the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of not guilty on September 2, 201, on the following grounds: (a) PDs ( Nonparty 1, 2, and 2, the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which were the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and (b) the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on September 2, 201, and became final and conclusive.

③ However, on September 20, 201, immediately after the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff was subject to a disciplinary measure of suspension from office or reduction of pay on the ground that the above PD had injured the company’s reputation, but on December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment confirming that the above disciplinary measure was null and void on December 7, 2012, Seoul Southern District Court 201Gahap000, and the above case is currently pending in the

④ Meanwhile, the “○○○○○”, working at the production team, intended to broadcast the program that deals with the issues of the so-called “the so-called 4 major lecture project,” which was being promoted at the time as the title of the 4 major lecture and 6-meter secret in water depth on August 17, 2010. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs asserted that the said program is false on the part of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap00 applied for the provisional injunction, but was decided to dismiss the said provisional injunction on the day of broadcasting.

⑤ The management, including the president of Kim○-○○, demanded a copy of the pre-broadcasting implications, and upon refusal of the demand for the implications, the Plaintiff, despite the opposition of the director general of PD and the director general of culture bureau at the time, suspended the broadcast through an executive meeting (the program was broadcasted on August 24, 2010, one week after the program was aired on August 27, 201, and the ○○ Council was held on September 27, 2010 regarding the legitimacy of the measure of withholding the broadcast).

④ After that, on March 3, 2011, Nonparty 1, who was appointed as the Director General of the National Culture Bureau in charge of the production of the “○○” program, announced the personnel measures policies to replace the PD, in principle, worked for more than one year on the day of appointment, on the ground that the program viewing rate has lowered because the production of ○○ was excessively biased as seen earlier in the program related to e-mail, etc.

7) In the announcement of these personnel measures, PD is against the head of PD, and the non-party Kim Kim k kn (the head of Abeder Broadcasting Team) together with the head of the Sile Kim & current culture bureau at the time explained the reason for the above personnel measures, “○○ program has a biased nature in labor movement and political biased.” The head of ○○○ need to depicate the political biased of ○○○, and the head of ○○○ in the case of the highest○○, but the political color is excessive.

④ Since then, the Director-General of the Culture and Arts Bureau appointed Non-party Kim ○○○ as the production team leader of Non-party Kim ○○, who had never worked in ○○○○, and issued six ○○○○○ by issuing the largest ○ as the external management unit of the ○○○○○. However, “○○○” was a program produced under the direction of PD, such as discovering the subject and compiling the final program for a long time, and making instructions on shooting and editing the final program while planning and reporting for a long time, and there was no personnel principle prior to replacing the PD that has worked for at least one year.

① The head of ○○○○○○○ and the Director General of the Culture and Arts Bureau for P&D and the head of the team for PD in connection with the selection of theme has caused frequent conflicts with PD in connection with the selection of theme, and the production of a program was denied on the grounds that there is no new content or no viewing rate, and the production of a program was conducted on the basis of suspicions related to the candidate in charge of PD in ○○ labor and management, the Jeju District Prosecutor General, and the suspicions related to the selection of the seven major natural landscape in Jeju-do. On August 23, 2011, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was scheduled to broadcast, led the production of a program to delete and broadcast the contents of the program on the Han River Reclamation Development, which appeared in the Han River River market in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was planned to broadcast. In addition, the Kim$$ was found to have followed the books of PD on July 15, 2011 and received the PD paragraph.

① On the other hand, according to the personnel measures taken by the director general of the Ministry of Culture and Arts, Non-party 1: (a) transferred to ○○○○ in March 201, respectively; (b) however, Non-party 1: (c) attempted to suspend inter-Korean economic cooperation and to broadcast programs on May 24, 2011; (d) ordered the suspension of production on the ground that the viewing rate would be lower; (b) this led to the occurrence of ○○ and Ma-○, the representative of the PD council of the PPD; and (c) the occurrence of Ma-○ and M& ○, the local headquarters of the Republic of Korea, which is one year after the suspension of inter-Korean economic cooperation; and (d) the local headquarters of the Republic of Korea, the local headquarters of the Republic of Korea, the local headquarters of Korea, respectively.

① As a result of the Nonparty’s application for provisional disposition of suspension of the validity of a transfer order by Seoul Southern District Court 201Kahap000 with the Plaintiff’s ○○○, the Nonparty received a decision citing all applications on July 15, 201 on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the necessity of the Plaintiff’s business as alleged by the Plaintiff and that the collective agreement was also violated.

② However, even after the acceptance of the provisional disposition, the head office was transferred to Japan, which was not the head office in 2012 under the pretext of planning the work in 2012, and the office or assistant to be in charge of the relevant work was not completely prepared in Japan. The head office was excluded from the production work until October 201, and was returned to the head office on his/her own.

③ From November 201, 201, the Director General of the Culture Bureau for current events had been in office until November 201. In the meantime, “○○” during the year 201 came to fall rather than 2010. On the other hand, “leap & & & & & & & & & & & & were already produced by broadcast minutes” on June 24, 2011, on the basis that the residents’ voting for free school meals in Seoul Special Metropolitan City may lead to unfair vision, solely on the ground that the residents’ voting for free school meals in Seoul Special Metropolitan City may lead to a decision of the employees on June 20, 201, and demand the Council to take measures on June 27, 2011 as well as on September 27, 2011.

C) replacement of contributions at the radio headquarters and labor conflict, etc.

① On March 25, 2011, Nonparty 1 was appointed as the director of the Plaintiff’s radio headquarters. Before this appointment, Defendant Trade Union opposed Nonparty 1 to the appointment of the director of the radio headquarters, “The representative influences against the program due to erroneous planning and interference, etc.” 1 ② The % % endeds the radio program immediately after his inauguration, and thereafter, the radio headquarters was replaced by Nonparty 1, such as Nonparty 2, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○, or the contributor on the ground of the decline in the rate of listening or involvement in political activities.

③ In addition, around July 2011, the Plaintiff newly established a deliberation on fixed contribution restriction with a view to restricting the fixed contribution by a contributor who publicly expresses specific opinions on social issues. At that time, the Plaintiff’s “OO” intended to depart from Y Kim ○ as a contributor, and, on the ground that Kim ○ actively engaged in political activities at the time, he/she violated the prior reporting procedure, rejected contributions on July 15, 201. Furthermore, around September 17, 2011, the Plaintiff tried to replace ○○○○, the progress of the “○○○”, on the ground that there was a decline in the audience’s rate of hearing, but during that process, there was no dispute, such as the decline of ○○○ and the reversal of the intention to make contributions. However, the Plaintiff demanded the replacement of ○○○ in charge of manufacturing the relevant program in the process of replacing ○○ or ○○ in the process of operating the program, and then did not explicitly hear the change of ○○ and its progress.

④ Accordingly, the PD belonging to the radio headquarters conducted a demonstration in front of the bureau room, posted a warning board, etc. to criticize the president of Kim○○○ and the % bureau chief at the office, and made a final judgment on the company’s books by taking advantage of night time, “The vice-contractors will be subject to a final judgment,” and there was a red paper attached with the phrase “the vice-contractors.”

⑤ In addition, Defendant Trade Union’s criticism that the Plaintiff’s management took part in the so-called “the so-called “the so-called cleaning of the strike,” and the Plaintiff demanded the ○○○○ Council on the replacement of the Kim○○○ Progress on May 6, 2011 and December 18, 2011, but the above “the first year for the suspension of inter-Korean cooperation” was included in the case of the demand on May 18, 201, and the first year for the suspension of production was included in the agenda) rejected the demand on the ground of part of the employees’ booming demonstration. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s Radio Headquarters was replaced from 10% to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s demand on the ground that there was a difference between the circumstances leading up to the instant strike and the first half year’s demand for a new election report by asserting that there was a difference between the Plaintiff’s previous report and the first half year’s demand for a new election report under Article 1016.

The actual change of assignment was not made.

B) (1) On November 23, 201, the Plaintiff sent relays and reporters to the assembly site on November 23, 201, but did not report them to ○○○○ on the following day, and only reported the summary of the assembly held by the police on the following day (on the following day, there was controversy over the infringement of human rights regarding the use of water distribution by the police, but did not report it, and the Plaintiff’s attitude on the Plaintiff’s report led to the occurrence of a situation in which the costs of the demonstration were refused to gather materials by the reporters belonging to the Plaintiff.

② On November 26, 2012, Non-Party ○○, a reporter belonging to the Plaintiff’s news coverage two copies of video coverage at the time, posted a statement to the effect that “Non-Party ○○, a reporter affiliated with the Plaintiff’s news report, shall be punished for refusing to gather news and destroying broadcasting equipment on the ground of ○○○ reporter’s instant broadcast on the bulletin board of the intra-company website,” and “on the following day: (a) the participants in the assembly interfered with news coverage on the ground of ○○ reporter’s instant broadcast on the ○○○○○ ○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.”

C) ① On November 30, 201, Defendant Trade Union demanded the Plaintiff to hold the ○○ Council on the grounds of unfair reports related to the Korea-U.S. FTA on November 30, 201, and upon notification from the Plaintiff’s side that it would hold the Council under the vice president’s presence, Defendant Trade Union demanded the Plaintiff to attend the ○○ Council and demanded the Plaintiff to hold the ○○ Council again on December 13, 201. The Plaintiff refused to comply with this.

② In addition, in 2011, the Plaintiff did not hold a regular meeting of the ○○ Council pursuant to the Regulations on Operation of the ○○ Council, which provides that the Plaintiff shall hold once a month. The Defendant’s Trade Union demanded to hold a regular meeting or extraordinary meeting 14 times in total during the year 2011. However, the Defendant’s Trade Union demanded to hold a regular meeting or extraordinary meeting on a 15-day basis (the request on March 7, 201) and May 2, 2011 when only 15-day or one month has passed since the request for an extraordinary meeting was made.

2. (Requests made on March 24, 201), November 3, 2011 (Requests made on October 18, 201), which was held on three occasions.

In addition, on January 2, 2012, ○○○○○ Council’s demand to hold a meeting did not respond on the ground that the ○○○ Council’s non-voting (the following is immediately considered) was the chief of the news report headquarters.

D) ① At the time, “○○” was a competitor’s news program, which lowers the viewing rate compared to that of the competitor’s news program. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s management presented the news improvement proposal, “○○” whose broadcasting hours were changed, etc.

② However, on January 5, 2012, asserting that the press conference composed of reporters belonging to the Plaintiff should be prior to the personal chain, it convened a general meeting and conducted a non-Confidence vote demanding the resignation of the former $$$ 108 members (86.4%) from among 125 members (86.4%). In the voting process, the press conference consented to the non-Confidence vote of 36 out of 40 members (90%) from January 7, 2012 to August of the same month.

③ Accordingly, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff from being assigned to the position of ○○○ and ○○○, each of which is the president of the reporters, and referred on January 10, 2012 to the Personnel Committee. The reporters’ conference and video reporters’ conference demanded the withdrawal of disciplinary action, and carried out pro-con voting on January 18, 2012 through 19 of the same month. As a result of voting, 115 out of 137 members of the reporters’ conference, 30 out of 45 members of the video reporters’ conference and 30 members of the video reporters’ conference were sent to the refusal of production from January 25, 2012. Accordingly, the broadcasting hours of ○○○’s “○○” were considerably reduced from 50 minutes to 15 minutes, 90 minutes from 90 minutes from 90 to 10 minutes from 90, 300, 160” news programs (O: 16).

E) ① Defendant Trade Union Seoul Branch held a pro-con voting to conduct a total strike from January 25, 2012 to 27 (from January 19, 2012, 2012) and agreed that 783 of all union members (83.4%) participate in voting and 533 of them (69.4%) participate in voting.

② At the time, Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission’s notice of pro-con voting was drawn up with “the most important reason why Korea is opposing the Kim○○ president” was falling down with ○○’s reputation as a public broadcast. In 2010, Kim○ president, which was put into the president of the Republic of Korea in 010, has been consistent with the role of the head of the Sim-il regime. For each election, the reports of social conflicts that may be enjoyed even if they are left out of the government’s power (hereinafter, “the most reason why Korea is opposing ○○ president”). The Kim○○ president, who was put into the president of the Sim-il regime in 2010, has been faithful to the role of the head of Sim-il regime

The current program is consistent with the thorough death. ○○○ currently faces an infinite crisis. “The instant total strike is scheduled to proceed with the retirement of the State station in which the public broadcast ○○ for the last two years was damaged by the network, and the president of Kim○○○ for the last two years.” “The Cooperative demanded the finite to the president of Kim○○○, but the president of Kim○○ was silently consistent. In the end, it was revealed that the president of Kim○○○ has no intention and ability to normalize the public broadcast ○. As a result of the public opinion poll conducted with 100 professors of the press department, the Plaintiff’s response that the fairness and reliability of the large broadcast 2012 and the large number of the causes of fairness and reliability has reached 70%, and the public opinion poll was introduced that the Plaintiff’s response was 70%, pointing out that the highest tendency of the friendly executives was friendly.

F) According to the above pro-con voting, Defendant Labor Relations Seoul Branch notified industrial action on January 27, 2012 on the occurrence of industrial action and started the instant strike from January 30, 2012:00; and the purpose of the strike was to start the strike from January 30, 2012, and "No. 1 of the total strike guidelines" claimed as the "a strike for the normalization of public broadcasting ○○."

4) ① After the completion of the instant strike, Defendant Labor Relations Seoul Branch: (a) “this ○○○○○○ of the political party will return to the ○○○○ citizens’ good”; and (b) “The ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ mick, written the same phrases on the 1st st st st st st st stst st st st st

② In addition, the Plaintiff’s head office with the president’s office and the vice president’s office, the 10th floor in the management support office, the 5th floor in the news report office, and the 5th floor in the news report office, etc., demanded a group meeting to hold out relief and to hold a meeting, meeting, public performance, etc., and distributed printed materials to citizens to inform the legitimacy of the strike. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s regular broadcast program such as “○○,” “OO,” “OO,” “OO,” and “OO,” were produced and distributed online to represent the position of the labor union.

③ Workers taking part in the strike of this case have gradually increased before and after the first 600 employees, and June 2012.

8. A maximum of 785 members were maintained for about 760 members until the end of the strike. In addition, the key assignment officers of the Seoul branch of the Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations Group such as Defendant 00, this**, Gangwon0, Kim00, head**, this00, Kim & Kim & Kim**, etc. were led or actively participated in various assemblies and demonstrations held during the strike, and Kim○ did not work at the Plaintiff company for about 3 weeks after the strike of this case, and the Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations did not work at the Plaintiff company for about 3 weeks after the strike of this case. In order to demand an interview with the president of Kim○○, and publicize the position of the Defendant Trade Union and Labor Relations.

C) On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff closed 5th and 10th floor reporting stations and 22th day from May 16, 2012. At around 00, 200, 50 members of the press conference obstructed the Plaintiff from leaving the vehicle of the head office ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

9. Partial winning judgment was rendered on the ground that some of the contents are false.

D) (1) On February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff filed with the Seoul Central District Court an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the Plaintiff from interfering with the Plaintiff’s business with ○○○. The Seoul Southern District Court, upon receipt of partial application from the Plaintiff on June 13, 2012, applied for provisional disposition prohibiting the Defendant’s labor union and its members (Defendant 10, 00, this**, Kim00, * 100, 00, 000, * *00, ** * *, 00, 00, * *, 00, 000). The Seoul Southern District Court, upon the receipt of partial application from the Defendant on June 13, 2012, imposed the Plaintiff’s labor union or its members, either directly or by a third party, prohibiting assemblies from opening part of the Plaintiff’s workplace or its materials, ④ the Plaintiff’s act of demanding the resignation of the Plaintiff’s workplace or its materials, “an act interfering with the Plaintiff’s 2’s street or its entrance.”

The defendant's labor union and defendant's respondent were notified.

B From June 15, 2012, Defendant Labor Relations Seoul Branch suspended pedagoging of executive officers within the head office, and changed the method of strike by holding a meeting before the sentiments or south of the Plaintiff’s head office, conducting a joint signature campaign, etc. The first person’s demonstration continued until July 17, 2012. The first person’s demonstration continued until July 19, 2012, and the first executive staff pedagoging was resumed before the emotional and south, and continued until July 12, 2012.

E) ① During the strike period, part of the artistic pro grams, such as ○○, ○○○○ and ○○○, O, news reporting programs for each hour (09:30, 15: 00, 18: 00, 24:00) and reporting programs for news by each hour, '○○’, and 'OO’ were associated or reduced, and dlama P’s broadcast for one week (from March 7, 2012 to August 7, 2012) was replaced by some of the members who participated in the strike.

② On March 28, 2012, the Plaintiff selected five poppy poppy under the jurisdiction of the news reporting station, and April 2012.

17. On May 12, 2012, a public notice was issued to employ a career reporter as a full-time employee on a one-year basis, and the public notice was issued on June 13, 2012, for the recruitment of a career producer, such as a career reporter and a news progress PD. Through this process, the Plaintiff’s substitute worker employed during the strike has reached 93 total number of employees.

F) On July 17, 2012, Defendant Trade Union Seoul Branch declared the temporary suspension of the instant strike, ordered its members to return to work 09:00 on the following day, and accordingly, the instant strike was terminated.

5) Meanwhile, the provisions of the Plaintiff’s collective agreement (common agreements and supplementary agreements) related to the instant case, and the ○○ Council’s operating rules are as listed in attached Table 1.

【Uncontentious facts】 Each statement and image of Gap's 2 through 9, 13 through 15, 17, 18, 21 evidence, Eul's 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 16, 22 through 44 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and each statement and image of Gap's 2 through 9, 13 through 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 through 44, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

Article 33(1) of the Constitution provides that "an employee shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions." Article 3 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "An employer may not claim compensation against a trade union or worker in cases where damages are incurred due to collective bargaining or industrial action under this Act." Thus, if the Plaintiff's damage claim against the Defendants, the strike in this case constitutes an illegal strike beyond the legitimate strike under the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and the Plaintiff has the burden of asserting the illegality thereof and the burden of proof.

On the other hand, legitimate strike means a strike that satisfies all the conditions that the subject should be the subject of collective bargaining, that the subject should be the subject of collective bargaining, that is, the purpose of which should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management in order to improve working conditions. Third, when the employer refuses to conduct collective bargaining with respect to specific demands for the improvement of working conditions of workers, it shall undergo procedures prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a decision to approve union members, 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 2004Du00, Apr. 29, 2005).

However, this case is directly connected to the issue of guaranteeing and limiting freedom of broadcasting in the broadcasting industry that is in charge of the high-level public interest of maintaining and developing the fundamental democratic order. Therefore, in order to determine the legitimacy of the strike of this case, it is necessary to review the contents of the regulations in the Constitution and laws related to broadcasting as well as the labor relations law.

Therefore, first of all, the freedom of broadcasting and the legal significance of the duty of ○○Hun-Ba shall be examined, and the specific contents and criteria of the duty of ○○○○ is to determine whether the strike of this case is justifiable. (1) Article 21(1) of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall have the freedom of speech and press, and shall have the freedom of assembly and association,” and the freedom of speech and press guaranteed under the above provision include the freedom of broadcasting. The freedom of broadcasting is not only the nature of subjective freedom, but also the nature of objective order to guarantee the freedom of speech, which serves as the basis for the existence and development of democracy, and also has an institutional guarantee as well as the objective order to ensure the substantial function of broadcasting to realize and exercise the freedom of broadcasting. Accordingly, the freedom of broadcasting has an area where the objective order is to form and specify, and to this end, Article 21(3) of the Constitution provides that “the fundamental principles of the Constitution, including the establishment and operation of broadcasting, shall be determined by the Constitution and the fundamental principles of free democracy and the operation of broadcasting.”

B) Mass media, such as newspapers and broadcasting, which are the media of forming public opinion and forming individual opinions, have the constitutional status based on their functions. In other words, the freedom of broadcasting is the freedom of serving as a media that leads public opinion by setting the basis for the freedom of subjective expression of opinion under the Constitution and at the same time connects individual freedom of expression and information to form public opinion.

Therefore, one of the derivative media is required to be established, operated, and organized so that various opinions of all levels of people can be freely and openly communicated, and this is revealed as a democratic request that the subjects of all levels of people with public interest can participate equally in the operation and programming of broadcasting, and that it is necessary to establish a democratic request that the various opinions of all levels of people with public interest should be freely and openly communicated.

Based on these two requests, the Broadcasting Act has been enacted to guarantee the freedom and function of broadcasting, and there are other provisions such as the provisions on the review of broadcasting, the ○○ Promotion Act, the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies for Damage Caused by Press Reports enacted in accordance with the Broadcasting Act, and the contents of the relevant provisions are as shown in attached Table 2.

Examining its major contents, the Broadcasting Act guarantees the freedom and independence of broadcast programming (Article 4(1)); and no person shall regulate or interfere with broadcast programming unless prescribed by the Act (Article 2(2)); a broadcasting business operator shall appoint a person in charge of broadcast programming and publicly announce his name at least once a day during broadcasting hours; and a broadcasting business operator shall guarantee autonomous broadcast programming by a person in charge of broadcast programming; (3) a broadcasting business operator specialized in news programming shall establish and publicly announce broadcast programming rules after hearing the opinions of persons in charge of broadcast programming and production in order to guarantee the autonomy of broadcast programming; (4) a broadcasting business operator engaged in news programming shall establish and publicly announce broadcast programming rules after hearing the opinions of persons in charge of broadcast programming to ensure the autonomy of broadcast programming; and (5) a business operator engaged in news programming (Article 6(1)) to ensure the fairness and objectivity of broadcast reports by broadcast (Article 6(1)); and (3) a business operator shall ensure the balance in disclosing policies, etc. of the Government or a specific group to provide equal opportunity to other groups; and (9) a broadcast program with respect to each political parties.

The provisions concerning the fixed review of broadcasting clearly stipulate the fairness and objectivity of broadcasting as the basis for review of broadcasting (Article 9, Article 14), and Article 100(1) of the Broadcasting Act and Article 59 of the Regulations concerning review of broadcasting, with respect to the broadcasting which violates the provisions concerning review of broadcasting and the provisions concerning review of broadcasting, the Commission may order sanctions, such as imposition of penalty surcharges, etc., under the provisions concerning review of broadcasting.

On the other hand, the ○○○ Promotion Act established the ○○ Promotion Association and established the ○○ Promotion Association with the aim of realizing the public responsibility of broadcasting business operators who are the largest investors, promoting democratic, sound, and improving public welfare (Article 1). The Broadcasting Act exceptionally permits the ownership of more than 40/100 of equity shares of terrestrial broadcasting business operators in consideration of the public purpose of the ○○ Promotion Association’s ○○ Promotion Association (Article 8(2) proviso 2). Furthermore, the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports also guarantees the freedom and independence of the press (Article 3(1)), and no person may regulate or interfere with the freedom and independence of the press (Article 3(2)), and the freedom and right of the press shall not be restricted by the Constitution and Acts, and furthermore, the press report shall be fair and objective (Article 4(1)), and the public interest shall be represented for the public interest examination, and (3).

C) According to the purport of Article 4 of the Broadcasting Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes that requires the enactment of a covenant on broadcast programming by hearing the opinions of a broadcasting business entity and a person in charge of broadcast programming, the person in charge of broadcast programming to separate broadcast programming and the person in charge of broadcast programming, guarantee of autonomous broadcast programming, coverage and production, and the opinions of persons in charge of broadcast programming, not only the person in charge of broadcast programming but also the reporters involved in news gathering, production, and programming of broadcasts, and persons engaged

However, the fact that a person can be the subject of freedom of broadcasting refers to a third party, i.e., freedom to serve the people for the purpose of establishing the right public opinion. Accordingly, the relevant laws, such as Broadcasting Act, stipulate the independence of broadcasting, thereby clarifying the nature of freedom of broadcasting by stipulating the duty of fairness and objectivity of news reports.

Therefore, the duty of ○○ is the duty imposed not only on the broadcasting business entity but also on the persons in charge of broadcast programming and all the persons engaged in the press who assist them, which is embodied by the law and order as an objective legal order, and is unlawful.

2) Whether the demand for guaranteeing fairness in broadcasting can be the objective of industrial action) Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act defines a labor dispute as "a state of dispute arising from disagreements between the trade union and the employer on the determination of terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, hours of work, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment," and Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act defines industrial action as "a state of dispute arising from a disagreement

In addition, the purpose of industrial action is to establish autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions. The purpose of industrial action is to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management for the purpose of improving working conditions. Here, the purpose of industrial action is to create collective bargaining between labor and management for the purpose of improving working conditions. (See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da000 delivered on September 30, 1994; 9Do000 delivered on April 24, 2001, etc.). In light of such legal principles, the purpose of industrial action is to determine working conditions or other matters concerning labor relations affecting them, which are, in principle, related to labor and management relations, and which are, in principle, subject to collective bargaining. However, whether industrial action constitutes collective bargaining under Article 30 of the Constitution and Article 29 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do00 delivered on September 30, 199; 9Do000 delivered on April 24, 2001).

5. 12. See Supreme Court Decision 91Da000 delivered on December 12.

On the other hand, in the case of this case, the plaintiff is subject to the Broadcasting Act as a company running a broadcasting business which may have a significant impact on the formation of public opinion by transmitting a broadcast with limited frequency band allocated to the general company, unlike the general company. It is necessary to define the scope of the matters subject to collective bargaining in consideration of the plaintiff's special business purpose and status as a broadcasting business operator.

B) On the other hand, both the Plaintiff’s labor and management enjoy the status of the subject of freedom of broadcasting and the obligor of the norm, and the above obligation should be observed as an objective order as seen earlier. Furthermore, the freedom of editing and news reports, one of the contents of the freedom of broadcasting, is to prevent the use of a tool to express a specific person’s subjective intent and to make public opinions. As such, the mutual relationship between related persons, such as an operator, a person responsible for programming, and a reporter, is governed by a contract under the private law, as a matter of principle, labor contract. However, restricting the freedom of editing and news reports by a contract under the private law is bound to undergo certain limitations due to the nature of the freedom of broadcasting as an objective value order, and the management right, unlike the general company, has to be limited to the scope and method of exercise (see Articles 4 through 6 through 8 of the Broadcasting Act, and Articles 9 through 9 of the Broadcasting Act, which provide for the scope and method of exercise (see, e.g., public responsibility).

Therefore, whether it is possible to produce a broadcast in a feasible environment to the Defendants responsible for the production of a broadcast with the person responsible for broadcast programming is an important element to determine their working conditions as a broadcasting business employee, as a matter of compliance with the obligations required by the relevant laws and regulations, and as an exercise of their rights to freedom of broadcast.

C) The term “fairness of broadcasting” refers not to a mere fact that excludes any value judgment, but to the effect that an objective and neutral broadcast based on facts should be broadcast by excluding voluntary programming based on subjective value judgment and by collecting diverse values. The value is itself subjective, and thus, is fair as broadcasting is fair.

The judgment is inevitably different from the viewpoint of view.

Therefore, the determination of whether the fairness of broadcasting is complied with can also serve as a basis for the determination of the content of broadcasting, such as false facts or defamation contents, or the method of editing, but it functions as a more objective standard for determining whether to prepare an institutional device that enables democratic decision-making in the production and programming process with the free opinion of members and the participation of members.

D) Therefore, the preparation and compliance of an institutional device to realize the fairness of broadcasting are matters for which the Plaintiff is obligated to conduct collective bargaining pursuant to Article 30 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and so-called obligatory negotiations (in fact, the Plaintiff’s collective agreement as shown in attached Table 1 and the regulations on the operation of the ○○○ Council are established to ensure the fairness and independence of broadcasting, and the ○○ Council was established and operated to establish and operate ○○ Council, and other various institutional devices have been installed to prevent any infringement on the fairness of broadcasting inside the Plaintiff, including the policy-making meeting of the director general of the assigned position or the opinion-making of employees in the head of the headquarters, etc.). Despite the existing rules of employment or collective agreement, if the employer intends to control the production, editing, and transmission of broadcasting by disregarding these procedures and abusing personnel rights or management rights, this is not only a violation of the collective agreement, but also a violation of the labor conditions of the Broadcasting Act and the purpose of guaranteeing the freedom of broadcasting business operation of the Plaintiff, which constitutes an objective violation of the law and order.

In the instant case, there is no particular dispute between the parties regarding the fact that Defendant Trade Union or Seoul Branch is a person eligible to be a collective bargaining entity. Thus, after examining whether the purpose of the instant strike is legitimate, it is reasonable to view the legitimacy of the timing, procedure, method, etc.

A) Whether the purpose of the instant strike is justifiable (i) the part demanding ○○○

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s management, including Kim○, before the strike of this case, did not comply with the provisions for the realization of ○○○ as stipulated in the existing collective agreement, and did not arbitrarily modify the program, such as arbitrarily changing the broadcast content without justifiable grounds, refusing to produce a broadcast that criticizes or raises an issue without justifiable grounds, refusing to produce a broadcast with his own intent without reasonable grounds, or intending to produce a broadcast that is different from his intent, on the ground that he did not produce a broadcast according to his own intent or intended to produce a broadcast that is different from his own intent. By such means, the Plaintiff’s management, including Kim○, etc. abused the right of personnel by unilaterally changing the position of the broadcast producer on the ground that he did not produce a broadcast according to his own intent without justifiable grounds, or did not produce a broadcast that is going against his duty to maintain diversity and neutrality, and tried to produce and compile a broadcast that is in line with the value and interest of the manager.

The act of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff was not only aggravated working conditions in violation of the collective agreement, but also violated the obligations and legal order of ○○○○ recognized by the relevant laws, such as the Broadcasting Act, and even if the defendant's labor union filed a judicial remedy against the plaintiff's act of violating the collective agreement, it was difficult to effectively remedy for the freedom of broadcasting and the securing of ○○○○○. Furthermore, the defendant's labor union's demand for the plaintiff is not merely demanding the plaintiff to merely urge the plaintiff to perform the obligations stipulated in the existing collective agreement, but it is required to correct unlawful state and consult more concrete measures to effectively secure ○○○○. Thus, the purpose of the action is legitimate only because it constitutes an industrial action aimed at determining working conditions.

① Whether to report a specific news, the selection of a particular subject of broadcast program, and the replacement of contributors, etc. are determined based on the professional judgment of a broadcast producer. It is difficult to readily conclude that the fairness of broadcast was infringed solely on the result of such determination. However, the Plaintiff’s employee or user may raise an issue regarding such determination from the perspective of a broadcast producer. In such cases, the Plaintiff’s employee or user may be deemed to have complied with the fairness of broadcast only when the problem raised is resolved reasonably according to the procedure agreed by the parties.

② However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s collective agreement has a procedural system that can resolve disputes over the fairness of broadcasting through consultation between labor and management, including the operating rules of the ○○○ Council, and promote the realization of fair broadcasting. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s operating rules of the ○○ Council include the same council consisting of equal number of labor and management members, allowing the ○○ Council to demand the change of assignment only with the consent of a majority, and even in this case, it also includes the contents that the president recognizes the discretion that the president may not comply with such a request, thereby preventing any infringement on the essence of personnel rights belonging to

③ However, the Plaintiff attempted to revise matters concerning the right to demand the change of assignment among the regulations of the ○○ Council from the collective bargaining since the second half of the year 2010. Since such an attempt was not made, the Plaintiff did not hold regular ○○ Council once once since the year 2011, and did not comply with the Defendant’s demand to hold temporary meetings. In particular, even though the last ○○ Council held on November 3, 201, which was held on November 3, 201, promised to prevent the recurrence of unfair news reports, the Plaintiff’s president, Kim○, the president of the Plaintiff, promised to prevent the recurrence of unfair news reports, but the Plaintiff did not make any effort for the labor-management agreement from that time, and furthermore, on January 5, 2012, the ○○ Council and Video Video Council opened a disciplinary procedure by assigning him/her to vote for non-Confidence voting for the same reason.

④ In addition, before the commencement of the instant strike, the Plaintiff replaced the production progress of certain programs, such as “○○,” on the ground that the work performance rating, without any objective basis, was influence, and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of innocence as to the defamation of “○○○○” program, which became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension from office, etc., but the court became final and conclusive by the court. As a result of the selection of the subject of broadcast, the Plaintiff issued a transfer order to a department irrelevant to the previous work, which would cause conflicts between labor and management by abusing his/her personnel authority, such as returning to the original position.

⑤ Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s management, including ○○○○○○, unilaterally instructed the postponement of broadcasting without any reasonable ground (4GG broadcast, ○○○○○○○○○’s broadcast program), and the head of the culture bureau or door * the head of the news report bureau, etc., (in particular, it seems that the Plaintiff’s free opinion and opinion of the members on the bulletin board, including the fact that he refused to respond sensitively to and refuse media reports, without any specific reason, and that the Plaintiff continuously infringed on the freedom of broadcasting by continuously preventing the members from freely expressing their opinions and impeding diverse values by democratic procedures. (2) If the Plaintiff’s demand for the removal of the president “○○○○○○○○○○○○○” was various for purposes of seeking industrial action, and a part of it was not justifiable, it should be determined that the industrial action was unlawful for the overall purpose of industrial action to have been conducted for 00 or more purposes, and thus, it should not be determined that the industrial action was conducted for the sole purpose of industrial action to have been conducted for 200 or more purposes.

17. The Plaintiff made efforts to establish a peaceful labor-management relationship, such as concluding a new collective agreement with the Plaintiff. ② On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not hold a regular meeting of the ○○○○ Council after 201 and did not respond to the request for holding extraordinary meetings of the Defendant’s union. ③ When the ○○ Council held on November 3, 201 requests change of the position pursuant to Article 10 of the Regulations on the Operation of the ○○ Council, where an event similar to that of the ○○○○○○ calls for change of its position, the Defendants did not accept and change the position in the name of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s primary purpose of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s broadcast, etc.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the strike of this case is justified in its purpose.

B) Whether the strike of this case’s industrial action is lawful (1) shall commence when the employer refused to conduct collective bargaining or reply to the intent to refuse collective bargaining with respect to the improvement of working conditions. However, even if the industrial action violated the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it does not necessarily mean that the industrial action is justifiable just, but rather, it should be determined by examining specific circumstances, such as whether the act causes confusion or damages that may not arise due to the act of violation of the law, and whether the act of violation of the law, such as the time and procedure for the strike of this case’s industrial action, and whether the industrial action of this case’s industrial action of this case’s industrial action of this case’s 200Nu00, May 14, 1991, the Seoul Labor Relations Commission unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to open a new collective agreement with respect to the industrial action of this case’s 100 o, the Seoul Labor Relations Commission’s establishment of the industrial action of this case’s industrial action of this case’s 1010 o.

C) Whether the means and methods of the instant strike are reasonable (i) the method of industrial action ought to be passively suspended to provide labor in whole or in part and to compromise the employer. In light of the principle of good faith in labor-management relations, fairness should be complied with, and in harmony with the employer’s ownership and other property rights to corporate facilities, it should not involve violence or destruction (Supreme Court Decision 192 May 1992).

8. Supreme Court Decision 91Do000, Supreme Court Decision 93Da0000, March 25, 1994, etc.). However, even in this case, the legitimacy of the industrial action itself and the legitimacy of each act constituting or incidental to the industrial action should be distinguished. Thus, even if certain minority workers committed an act of violence, etc., it does not constitute an unlawful act as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du000, supra).

(2) However, according to the facts of recognition of the front line, Defendant Labor Union Seoul Branch held a meeting on the first floor of the Plaintiff’s headquarters during the instant strike period, mainly from the first floor of the Plaintiff’s headquarters, posted banner, and closed the first floor door. In addition, some members were deaf on the 5th floor or the 10th floor with the president’s room in the sidewalk, but such assembly or farming characteristics were replaced by a short-term period, but the Plaintiff did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s partial broadcast, but did not have any complete and exclusive use of the broadcast program to the extent that the transmission of the broadcast program itself would be suspended. Furthermore, after receiving the court’s provisional disposition, there was no act of deeming the Plaintiff’s headquarters as violence or destruction during the instant strike period, and there was no act of causing damage to the Plaintiff’s headquarters in the process of the instant strike, and there was no other act of causing damage to the Plaintiff’s headquarters’s headquarters or columns, and there was no way to see that the Plaintiff’s union members did not have any means or means to take part of threat during the strike period.

D) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the strike of this case is justifiable, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the strike of this case is illegal only with the statement of No. 19, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

The judge of the presiding judge.

Judges Domins

Judges Ish Jeong-hee

A person shall be appointed.