Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Regular Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hybak Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 6, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 4,509,340 won, 5,126,748 won to the plaintiff 2, 3,382,412 won, and 6% per annum from November 11, 2010 to April 10, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 20% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 5,841,645 won, 6,41, 469 won, and 4,381, 761 won to the plaintiff 3, and 6% interest per annum from November 11, 2010 to the service date of a copy of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Defendant is a legal entity established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling motor vehicle accessories, such as motor vehicle buckets and mining.

(2) The Plaintiffs, who are the Defendant’s production workers, are the members belonging to the Daegu Branch of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union (hereinafter “MMMMM”) of the Daegu Branch of the Daegu Branch of the Trade Union (hereinafter “GMMMM”), and the Plaintiff 1 is the head of the branch before the company branch, the Plaintiff 2 is the head of the welfare department, and the Plaintiff 3 is the head of the education promotion department.

(b) Circumstances of the industrial actions conducted on the regular basis;

(1) When the metal labor union was established on January 1, 2010 as of July 1, 2010, prior to the enforcement of Article 24(3) through (5) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) on the full-time officer of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it presented a demand to the Defendant, etc. to guarantee that the number and treatment of the full-time officer of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act is the same as that of the current, and requested a special organization agreement (hereinafter “special agreement”), but the Defendant rejected the demand.

(2) On March 3, 2010, the metal labor-management-related Daegu District Office consulted on the special coordination but did not resolve the dispute, and on May 18, 2010, it applied for mediation of the dispute. On May 27, 2010 and May 28, 2010, as a result, 2,343 of the total members of the Daegu District Office made a resolution on the industrial action by 2,040 of the 2,587 voting and 2,040 of the total members of the 2,587 voting and 2,040 of the 2,040 members of the union. On May 28, 2010, the Gyeongbuk-do Regional Labor Relations Commission decided to terminate the mediation with respect to the above application for mediation of the metal labor-management-related branch.

(3) In addition, on March 30, 2010 for the renewal of a collective agreement, the ordinary branch of the Trade Union and the Trade Union began to conduct a supplementary bargaining at least ten times until June 15, 2010, and the Daegu Branch of the Metal Trade Union decided on June 1, 2010 and started a strike in relation to the special group, etc., and the ordinary branch of the Trade Union and the Trade Union and the Trade Union transferred the right to negotiate the special group of the Daegu Branch of the Metal Trade Union and the Trade Union and agreed with the Defendant.

(4) On June 25, 2010, the non-party, who is the president of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch, requested the Plaintiff to present the special branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the central branch of the political party, but the Defendant rejected

(5) Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 7, 2010, the business association reached an agreement between the labor-management council on the extension of facilities between the Defendant and the Defendant’s affiliate company (hereinafter “Industrial Complex”). The Defendant, on June 2010, planned to complete installation of the outer manufacturer of the mountain tetra bargaining from September 2010 to October 2010, as the security matters of the Taedo-learning Foreign Trade Union. The industrial complex was designated as an occupant company of 23,440.2 square meters in the remaining industrial complex site for the second industrial complex, which was achieved as of July 2010.

(6) From June 25, 2010 to July 27, 2010, the Trade Union held a negotiation including the Defendant and wage proposal, from which it commenced an individual strike. From July 21, 2010 to July 28, 2010 to the 17th supplementary bargaining, the request for the special collective agreement was agreed to proceed as a working-level meeting, and the special collective agreement was carried out three times from July 23, 2010 to July 28, 201.

(7) However, in the 18th supplementary negotiations opened on July 28, 2010, the superior conference ceased to deal with the above issues of violation of the agreements by the temporary labor-management council on January 7, 2010 on the ground of the extension of the door of the mountain tech and the purchase of the factory site. ② Suspension of the external handling of the existing complex, and deal with it by mutual agreement between labor and management. ③ agree with the trade union in accordance with the collective agreement regarding the new site of the achievement industry. ④ In relation to the pending issues, the 18th supplementary negotiations presented a special demand related to the pending issues, which read, “The labor-management agreement is agreed before lighting,” and the Defendant rejected the said demand.

(8) Accordingly, on July 28, 2010, Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3, etc. determined a strike schedule through an extended inter-conference meeting, which was held on July 28, 2010, and completely or partially conducted the lock-out, which is deemed below, until August 21, 2010, before the lock-out was conducted.

(c) Details of the lock-out;

(1) On August 18, 2010, the Defendant asked the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Agency on whether an industrial action on the ground of the purchase of a site for an affiliated company company, etc., to the effect that “if the industrial action had been excluded from the matters regarding the above union operator, etc., it is difficult to recognize the legitimacy of the industrial action, if the industrial action was for its main purpose, to the extent that it did not have done the industrial action,” and subsequently, maintained the lock-out from around 07:00 on August 23, 2010 to October 19, 2010 on the ground that the said industrial action constituted illegal strike (hereinafter “instant lock-out”).

(2) In addition, the Defendant restricted members of the Trade Union during the lock-out period from entering the trade union office. On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) contacted members on August 29, 2010; (b) on September 36, 2010; (c) September 45, 2010; (d) September 45, 2010; (e) September 45, 2010; (d) September 45, 2010; (e) September 45, 2010; (e) September 42, 2010; (e) October 37, 2010; and (e) October 10, 2010; and (e) did not return to the trade union members by not later than October 16, 2010, excluding most female members who returned to the trade union.

(d) Circumstances and details of the intent to return to work at the ordinary meeting during the lock-out period.

(1) On August 24, 2010, the ordinary rupture association deals with the Defendant on August 26, 2010, following the written statement that “The rupture, the rupture, and the labor and management conduct negotiations in good faith through the return to the site, and the air conditioners shall be installed during that period.” On August 26, 2010, the issue is dealt with in accordance with collective agreement. ② The issue is dealt with in accordance with the collective agreement. ③ On the special rupture, the entry into the trade union is not guaranteed after the lock-out. ④ On August 23, 2010, the company shall ensure that the entry into the trade union is not guaranteed. ⑤ The company conducts the collective bargaining in good faith in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement on March 30, 201, and has a cooling machine during that period. ② The representative of the labor and management shall have an air condition during that period.”

(2) Accordingly, on August 26, 2010, the Defendant withdrawn the request for agreement on the issue, such as the request for suspension of the extension of a factory of the company, since the pending issues, such as the demand for suspension of the extension of a factory of the company, are related to the management right of the company. ② During the hours of the full-time employee and working hours, the issue of trade union activities is in accordance with the Act and working hours exemption system, and reflect it in the collective agreement. ③ The collective action in order to achieve the agreement on pending issues, such as the suspension of the extension of a factory of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the branch and the members of the countermeasures against the dispute, recognized that it was an act of interference with the business, and accepted the responsibility for disciplinary action against illegal collective action and civil and criminal liability. ④ In the future, the four conditions were presented.

(3) Even after sending the letter of suspension of a strike as above, the Trade Union sent to the Defendant a letter of intent to suspend a lock-out and resume negotiations over several times. On September 6, 2010, the Trade Union sent 241 members with a commitment to provide labor (Evidence A6) and reached the Defendant around that time. On September 9, 2010, the Union again sent to the Defendant a letter of intent to completely suspend a strike, withdraw a strike, and return to the site and return to the site. (2) On September 10, 2010, the Trade Union sent a letter of commitment stating that “The Trade Union shall return to the site and notify the site of its position that all members will return to work.”

(4) In the supplementary bargaining on September 20, 2010, the Defendant: (i) the superior branch of the Trade Union shall work in accordance with the Work Hours Exemption System prescribed by the Act; (ii) the Defendant shall accept the principle of no labor-free wage during the period of an industrial action and reflect it in the collective agreement; and (iii) does not demand any money or valuables in the future during the lock-out period; (iv) the matters infringing on the right of management, such as the extension of production factories of the company and its affiliate that caused the industrial action, and any matters contrary to the current law, are deleted and effective in the existing collective agreement; and (v) the industrial action after June 25, 2010, recognized that it was illegal for the purpose of industrial action; and (v) the countermeasures committee members and their hinterlands who instigated the industrial action, are punished in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and regulations. (vi) After the completion of the work, the branch shall sign the final proposal that it does not instruct an illegal collective action at the time.

(5) On September 15, 2010, the Trade Union submitted a letter of withdrawal of report on industrial action to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission, and sent a letter to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to return to the site several times. On the 30th of the same month, the Trade Union adopted a resolution that the entire members, not individual return to work, return to the site simultaneously through a member’s vote, return to the site.

(e) Process of the relevant criminal case;

The Defendant’s representative director, etc. was indicted on the criminal facts stating that “after a lock-out, he/she refused to enter the labor union’s office and returned union members selectively while delaying negotiations, removed the mobile phone of the returned union members, and prevented the contact with the labor union members of the returned union by getting them board and lodging in the company, thereby leading to the organization and operation of the labor union, and was sentenced to a conviction on February 15, 2012 (2 million won of a fine) (Seoul District Court Seo-gu District Court Decision 201Da325).”

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6, 8 through 10, 12, 14, 15, 20 through 28, 48, 52, 53 evidence, Eul 1 through 6, 9 through 16 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

The Defendant’s commencement of the lock-out and maintenance of the lock-out are unlawful for the following reasons. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs the unpaid wages during the illegal lock-out period.

(1) The instant industrial action by the Trade Union and New Branch was due to the fact that the Defendant refused negotiations between labor and management regarding the issue of factory enlargement under Article 31 of the collective agreement, by asserting that it would be separate from the collective agreement, and did not faithfully comply with such negotiations. The Plaintiffs and members of the Trade Union including the Plaintiffs did not use violence or occupy production facilities in the course of industrial action, and the Defendant did not have any substantial loss due to industrial action by the Trade Union and New Branch. In addition, the Defendant concluded a consulting contract with the Trade Union and Labor Relations Association for the purpose of cutting down and withdrawal from metal trade, and structural change, etc. to take part in the trade union and completed the instant lock-out in accordance with the pre-determined plan to achieve that objective. Accordingly, the commencement of the lock-out constitutes an aggressive and active lock-out.

(2) Even if the Defendant’s initiation of the instant lock-out was lawful, since August 24, 2010, the superior branch sent out official door to the Defendant several times from around August 24, 2010, and expressed his intent to submit a report on the withdrawal of the industrial action on September 2, 2010, the instant lock-out failed to meet defensive and passive requirements from September 3, 2010, and the Defendant’s continued to maintain the lock-out thereafter is unlawful.

B. Defendant

The Defendant faithfully entered into special negotiations with the business association. The business association conducted an illegal industrial action over a long time by taking account of matters regarding management rights, such as treatment of union workers who are not subject to industrial action, and establishment of affiliate companies. Accordingly, the Defendant defensively conducted the lock-out in this case as it is likely to cause enormous damages due to the significant decline in production due to such reasons. Furthermore, since it has not been verified that the intention of returning to the business of the members of the business association, including the Plaintiffs after the lock-out of this case was genuine, the Defendant continued to maintain the lock-out. Accordingly, since the commencement and maintenance of the lock-out in this case constitutes a legitimate industrial action of the passive and defensive nature of the employer, the Defendant is not obligated to pay wages to the Plaintiffs involved in the industrial action during the lock-out period.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

Generally, a lock-out by an employer should be conducted as a means of counter-defense and defense to prevent such pressure and restore the balance of power in cases where the employer becomes considerably disadvantageous to the employer due to the workers’ industrial action. Thus, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the negotiating attitude and negotiation process of the employer and workers, the purpose and method of industrial action by workers, and the degree of shock that the employer receives as a result of such industrial action, the lock-out can be acknowledged as a legitimate industrial action by the employer. If the lock-out is deemed as a legitimate industrial action, the employer is exempted from the duty to pay wages to the workers subject to the lock-out period (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da3431, May 26, 200; 2004Do7218, Jun. 9, 2005). On the contrary, in cases where a lock-out is conducted as an industrial action lacking legitimacy, the employer is obliged to pay wages for the period of delay due to the nonperformance of the obligation to receive wages from the workers.

B. Whether the commencement of the lock-out of this case is legitimate

In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s initiation of the instant lock-out constitutes a lawful industrial action, based on each of the evidence and evidence as seen earlier, as well as evidence Nos. 32, 33, and 17-1, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) On June 17, 2010, the instant industrial action commenced from June 25, 2010 at the first supplementary negotiations conducted around June 25, 2010, with the exception of five provisions of the collective agreement, after the Daegu-gu Branch of Metal Trade Union transferred the right to wage negotiations and the right to special collective bargaining to the Superior Branch of the Trade Union. The instant industrial action commenced from June 25, 2010 at the ordinary meeting of the Trade Union and the first supplementary negotiations conducted around June 25, 2010, there was no additional agreement on the remainder of the collective agreement, excluding the provisions of five provisions.

① However, even if a metal labor union’s policy became final and conclusive in 2010, on February 4, 2010, it established a request for a special organization agreement with the main contents that “the number of full-time officers and treatment of the union shall be guaranteed the same as that of the previous union,” and plans an application for conciliation or industrial action in cases where special organization negotiations are not agreed smoothly, ② The newsletter issued on May 24, 2010 by the metal labor union Daegu Branch shall be deemed the Government’s proposal for exemption from working hours to be an propagation against a trade union, and the pro-con voting for industrial action was included in the contents of the labor union’s demand to resolve the pro-con. In full view of the fact that the labor union’s right and the special organization bargaining right were transferred to the upper Council, and the content of the labor union’s demand to begin the labor union’s strike at least 20 days prior to the commencement of the labor union’s 20-16-26-20-26-2000.

(2) The special demands related to the pending issue presented by the commercial union at the 18th supplementary bargaining on July 28, 2010 shall be discontinued immediately with respect to the violation of the agreements of the temporary labor-management council on January 7, 2010. ② shall be suspended and dealt with by mutual agreement between labor and management in connection with the external processing of the pending dispute. ③ The labor and management agree with the labor union in accordance with the collective agreement regarding the new site of the achievement industry complex. ④ The pending issue is: (4) labor and management agree with respect to the extension and the purchase of factory sites, an affiliate of the defendant, which is the affiliated company of the labor-management. This is a managerial measure to strengthen the company's competitiveness; and thus, Article 31(4) of the collective agreement provides that "where a company newly expands its affiliate, it shall undergo a resolution of the labor-management council." However, it cannot be subject to collective bargaining.

(1) Nevertheless, the Trade Union presented the special request related to the pending issue at the 18th supplementary bargaining. The defendant's collective bargaining agreement was concluded that it was difficult for the Trade Union to deal with the special request related to the pending issue. ② The salt fireworks 6-30 issued at that time included the fact that the Trade Union rejected the special request related to the pending issue to the defendant's side, but the defendant's side declared the bargaining agreement to be no longer consistent with the trade union, ③ the special request related to the pending issue was presented at the time of July 28, 2010, and the fact that Article 24 (4) and (5) of the Act on the Exemption of Work Hours of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Officer was already implemented (it was enforced on July 1, 2010). The continuation of the Trade Union in this case did not have been carried out in addition to the special agreement on the demand of the trade union related to the pending issue, if the purpose of the trade union continued to be excluded.

(3) Considering the circumstances in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, the strike of this case was conducted in the form of partial strike, remaining and peculiar refusal, full-scale strike, etc. over two months from June 25, 2010 to August 20, 2010 in order to accomplish a special request related to pending issues, and the strike of this case was conducted in the form of a special organization agreement request that cannot be the object of labor disputes, and the entire strike was conducted in the form of partial strike, remaining businesses and special circumstances, and full-scale strike. Furthermore, in light of the purpose, period, method, etc. of the strike of this case, it is deemed that the commencement of lock-out by the defendant is reasonable as a defense means against the strike of this case.

(4) Meanwhile, on August 21, 2010, prior to the commencement of the instant lock-out by the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant prepared a consulting agreement and a consulting agreement between the labor law firm’s creative consulting and received advice from the creative consulting about countermeasures, etc. against the ordinary society, etc. regarding the instant lock-out. However, solely on such circumstance, it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant was conducting the instant lock-out in accordance with the pre-determined plan for the purpose of the commercial society’s piracy, metal trade union withdrawal, structural change, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise (Additionally, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 100 million to the Defendant for the success fee to the creative market in the event that the Defendant’s democratic union withdrawal or changes to a higher-level organization, which is the subsidiary company of the creative consulting, on August 23, 2010, which was the start date of the instant lock-out. However, the above assertion is insufficient to accept the foregoing assertion).

C. The legality of maintaining the lock-out of this case

In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the evidence set forth in the above facts and the evidence set forth in Gap 32, 33, 35, and 41 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s continued to maintain the lock-out in this case for 44 days from September 6, 2010 to October 19, 2010, sent by 241 working members of the right to provide labor at the latest, including the plaintiffs, was against the means of passive defense against the act of dispute by the ordinary branch, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(1) In light of the following: (a) since the day following the lock-out of this case was performed, the ordinary branch sent several documents to the Defendant from September 5, 2010, to which the Defendant expressed his/her intention to return to work and discontinue the strike of this case; and (b) on September 6, 2010, the ordinary branch sent a written promise to provide labor to 241 members, including the Plaintiffs, and on September 15, 2010, filed a report on the withdrawal of industrial action with the Gyeongbuk Regional Labor Relations Commission, it is reasonable to deem that the ordinary branch’s expression of intent to return to work and discontinue the strike of the members of the ordinary branch including the Plaintiffs based on the letter of commitment to provide labor sent on September 6, 201

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant was convicted on the ground that the Defendant maintained the instant lock-out as it was not only for the right to work for the company in 2010 wage and collective agreement as well as for the withdrawal of the request for special collective agreement on pending issues, but also for the acceptance of the responsibility for disciplinary action and civil and criminal responsibility, but also for the reason that the Defendant committed an unfair labor act of “inciting the organization and harm of the trade union by delaying negotiations after lock-out and return the union members selectively while delaying negotiations, collecting the cell phone of the returned union members, and allowing them to board and lodge in the company, etc., by preventing contact with the trade union of the union members of the labor union.”

(3) In addition, the Defendant did not undergo a particular verification procedure against the employees, including the Plaintiff, who received the said letter of commitment to provide labor on September 6, 2010 from the ordinary meeting of the ordinary meeting, as well as their genuine intent to return to work based on the said letter of commitment.

(4) The Defendant was subject to consultation and consultation with the labor law firm on the strategy to respond to the commercial community conference in accordance with the labor law firm's creative consulting and consulting agreement. However, the title related to the response to the commercial community conference's trade action (Evidence A37) prepared on September 9, 2010 in the course of the advice, which is an external non-data, should be refrained from maintaining aggressive remarks between the branch and the negotiating participants in order to be seen as an aggressive lock-out in the course of the above consultation. It is difficult for the Defendant to present negotiations between labor and management to ensure the legitimacy of the maintenance of lock-out, and to respond to the same negotiation with the Ministry of Employment and Labor to the preparation of the existing industrial union's trade union's response to the trade union's aggressive out-of-the-date agreement with the branch and its members. It is difficult for the Defendant to respond to the preparation of the new union's response to the trade union's 30th anniversary of the request for a lock-out and pending issue.

D. Defendant’s duty to pay wages to the Plaintiffs for the illegal lock-out period

(1) Occurrence of duty to pay wages

According to the above, the lock-out period in this case is illegal for 44 days from September 6, 2010 to October 19, 2010 during the lock-out period, and thus, the Defendant, the employer, delayed the receipt of labor services from the Plaintiffs, who are workers.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiffs the full amount of wages for the above 44-day wage payment obligation.

(2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

(A) Claims related to delay of creditors

The defendant asserts that, during the 44-day lock-out period, the plaintiffs refused to provide labor to the defendant without their intent to return to their work on a genuine basis, such as opposing the return to their individual duties, etc. Thus, even if the lock-out during the said 44-day lock-out period is illegal, the defendant does not constitute a case where the defendant delayed to receive labor from the plaintiffs.

However, in order for the obligee to be established, there should be a debtor's performance, and the provision of performance should be a real provision. However, in case where the obligee's act is required, even if it is provided orally, and as above, the obligor who makes oral offer should notify the obligee of the completion of the preparation to the extent that the obligee can perform his/her obligation at any time when the obligee's cooperation is made, and notify the obligee to receive it.

In this case, in order for the plaintiffs to provide labor to the defendant, the defendant's cooperation is required, such as the withdrawal or termination of the defendant's lock-out. According to the above facts, the ordinary sub-chapters delivered to the defendant several times after the lock-out of this case the defendant's intention to return to work, including the plaintiffs, on September 6, 2010. In light of the above legal principles, the act of submitting the above letter of commitment to provide labor constitutes an act of notifying the plaintiffs to the defendant upon completion of their preparation to provide labor. Even if the plaintiffs opposed to the return to work of the ordinary sub-chapters participating in the industrial action of this case, it cannot be concluded that the provision of labor by the plaintiffs is not effective, or that the plaintiffs did not have any intent to provide labor to the defendant. The defendant's assertion is not accepted because there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

(B) The assertion of non-existence or waiver of the right to claim wages under a collective agreement

Next, the Defendant asserts that, after the completion of the lock-out in this case, the Defendant agreed that the Defendant and the Round agreed to apply the principle of no-work-free wages for the entire lock-out period including the said 44 days through negotiations, the Plaintiffs’ right to claim wages against the Defendant for the said 4-day lock-out period under the said collective agreement was not constituted or extinguished by waiver.

According to the statement No. 20-5 of the evidence No. 20, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to apply the principle of non-labor-free wages during the period of industrial action including the lock-out period in this case on November 16, 2010 after the completion of the lock-out in this case.

However, wages shall be paid at least once a month on a fixed date, and the payment payment date of the defendant is the 10th day of each month. Thus, the plaintiffs' right to claim wages against the defendant against the defendant from September 6, 2010 to October 19, 2010, which is the illegal lock-out period recognized above, had already been finally and conclusively occurred before November 16, 2010, which is the date of the above agreement, and as such, the wages for which the right to claim payment already occurred are transferred to the private property area of the worker and are entrusted to the disposition of the worker, so long as the trade union does not obtain individual consent or authorization from the worker, the collective agreement between the employer does not perform such act as waiver or suspension of payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da67536, Sept. 29, 200).

However, at the time of the above agreement between the defendant and the commercial name association, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the commercial name association has obtained individual consent or authorization from the plaintiffs in relation to the plaintiffs' right to claim wages for the illegal lock-out period that occurred as above at the time of the agreement, and even if the agreement was ratified by the general meeting of the commercial name association members at the general meeting of the commercial name association members, such agreement alone cannot be substituted by the plaintiffs' individual consent or authorization right. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this

(C) Claim of mutual aid

After the completion of the lock-out, the Defendant decided to pay for the de facto dispute period and the special incentive for the lock-out period in order to preserve the wages, and paid the Plaintiffs a total of KRW 3.6 million to compensate for the said special incentive amount. Considering the aforementioned incentive amount’s purpose and circumstance, the Defendant asserts that the aforementioned incentive amount should be deducted from the wages for the illegal lock-out period that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiffs.

According to the evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 21 of the evidence Nos. 20-20, the fact that the plaintiffs received 600,000 won from the defendant for production incentives, 1.5 million won for special encouragement of labor-management relations, and 1.5 million won for piece rates, respectively, is recognized after the completion of the lock-out in this case, from December 2, 2010.

However, partial deduction of wages can only be made if there are special provisions in the law or collective agreement (Article 43 of the Labor Standards Act). Moreover, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable as there is no evidence that the defendant's total amount of 3.6 million won paid to the plaintiffs is equivalent to or in lieu of the plaintiffs' wages that occurred during the illegal lock-out period, and thus, it is of the nature to be deducted under the principle of equity.

(3) Scope of duty to pay wages

As to the amount of wages that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs’ average wage on January 2009 is: (a) KRW 102,485 (total amount of wage and salary income in 2009 37,407,373,365; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) KRW 116,517 (42,528,711, 3673 (28,058,775 won/365 days); and (c) KRW 376,873 (28,058,775 won/365 days); and (d) Plaintiff 1,509,340 (total amount x 485 days x 484 days; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (e) Plaintiff 2,1,507, 209 x 3614,475 x 3616,475 x 2747

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from November 11, 2010, after the payment date of the defendant's wage to the plaintiff 1, as to the plaintiff 4,509,340 won, and the plaintiff 2, as to the plaintiff 3,382,412 won, and each of the above money, from November 11, 2010 to April 10, 2013, which is the date the decision of this case is rendered that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation to perform. (The defendant is the manufacturer of automobile parts, and the defendant's employment contract with the plaintiffs who are employees to conduct the business constitutes a supplementary commercial activity, and it is reasonable to see that the wage payment obligation arising from the ancillary commercial activity constitutes a commercial obligation) and from the next day to the day of full payment to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cha Sung-woo