(a) the meaning of “justifiable conduct for a trade union’s operations” under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act;

(b) In a case where some candidates from among candidates for the chairman of a number of trade union, who are remaining after resignation, use them for an election campaign by distorted the reasons for resignation, whether the act of informing the relevant resign to the members by distribution of printed matters is included in the act for the affairs of the trade union (affirmative);

C. A collective agreement that adopts a licensing system with respect to the distribution of printed materials and the legitimacy of the act of distributing printed materials during recess hours.

A. “Justifiable conduct for a trade union’s business” under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act generally refers to a legitimate trade union’s activities. However, if a trade union member is not an organized activity of a trade union in accordance with the resolution of the trade union or the specific instruction of the trade union, it can be viewed as an activity of the trade union in light of the nature of that activity, or if it can be seen that a trade union’s implied authorization or approval has been obtained, it shall be deemed an activity

B. It is clear that the act of a worker to leave the trade union as the chairperson of the trade union constitutes a justifiable act for the affairs of the trade union, and it is reasonable to interpret that an act of notifying the union members of the reason for resignation by distributing printed materials is included in the act for the affairs of the trade union in a case where only one of the candidates has resigned and left more than one candidate, and one of the candidates has distorted the reason for resignation and used it in his election campaign in a distorted manner. It does not mean that the act of notifying the union members of the reason for resignation is included in the act for the affairs of the trade union

C. Even if a collective agreement adopts the system of permission for the distribution of printed articles, the pertinent “B” cannot prevent a legitimate act for the business of a trade union. Thus, whether the act of distributing printed articles is not justifiable or not should be determined by considering all circumstances such as the content and method of distribution of printed articles. The distribution of printed articles should be determined by taking into account the contents of the printed articles into account. The legitimacy cannot be forfeited solely on the ground that the act of distributing printed articles under the instant “B” did not obtain permission, unless it adversely affects employment of other workers or interferes with free use of recess hours, or specifically disturbs workplace order.

Article 39 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8217 delivered on August 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1967)/A. Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1950 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong1989, 827)/Da-124 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2631)/C. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu147 delivered on October 11, 198

Attorney Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9454 delivered on April 11, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below

A. On December 26, 1989, the Plaintiff took disciplinary action against the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”), and determined that this dismissal was an unfair labor practice by Busan Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, and the Defendant made a decision of reexamination that dismissed the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination.

B. Furthermore, when the intervenor was employed for the plaintiff company on August 10, 1987 and was appointed as the representative and operating members of the plaintiff company, the labor union of the plaintiff company (hereinafter the "association") announced on December 29, 198 as to the election of the chairperson of the union, and the regulations of the union stipulate that the number of persons who run for the chairperson should be recommended by 150 or more union members and that overlapping recommendation should be invalid. However, the plaintiff's motion was imminent between the intervenor and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 did not receive the plaintiff's recommendation from the 9th election commission on the ground that the non-party 1's motion was not distributed to the non-party 4 and the non-party 1's motion was not distributed to the plaintiff company, but the non-party 1, who was the chairperson of the union at the time of the plaintiff's resignation, and the plaintiff's motion was not distributed to the non-party 9's head office.

C. The above inducement distributed by the intervenor mainly includes the candidate and candidate of the labor union who is not related to the affairs of the trade union and the false contents that it is caused by interference or interference with others, and it is difficult to regard the intervenor's act of distributing the above inducement as "an act for the business of the trade union" and even if it can be viewed as "an act for the business of the trade union", it cannot be viewed as a "political party". However, the intervenor distributed the above inducement with the intention of explaining the reason why the withdrawal was made and explaining the contents of the inducement distributed by the above non-party 3, and distributed it for the main purpose of the advertisement after distribution or disciplinary procedure, etc., and the above non-party 3 did not receive any disciplinary action, such as the non-party 3 did not go against the distribution or disciplinary procedure, and therefore, it seems that there was a reason to take a minor disciplinary action against the above dismissal, unlike whether the above dismissal was null and void.

2. However, examining the contents of the inducement of the problem (Evidence No. 5), the purport of the motion is unclear and exaggerated expressions are used. However, the Intervenor’s explanation and apology as to the rejection of the candidate and the rejection of the member’s motion as to the damages of the candidate’s resignation, and it does not seem to include the contents that indicate that his resignation is caused by the Plaintiff’s interference or interference, the employer.

3. “Justifiable act for the operation of a trade union” under Article 39 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act generally refers to a legitimate act of a trade union. However, even if a trade union member is not in itself an organized act of a trade union in accordance with a resolution of a trade union or a specific instruction of a trade union, it shall be deemed as an act for the operation of a trade union if it can be viewed as an act for the operation of the trade union, or if it can be viewed that a trade union’s implied authorization or approval has been granted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1950, Apr. 25, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8217, Aug. 10,

Therefore, it is clear that the act of a worker to leave as the chairperson of a trade union constitutes a justifiable act for the affairs of a trade union (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8217, Aug. 10, 190); where only one of the candidates of a majority of the candidates for the chairperson of a trade union has resigned and left for more than one candidate, and where one of them uses his election campaign in distortion of the reason for resignation, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of notifying the reason for resignation to the union members is included in the act for the affairs of the trade union; it is reasonable to interpret that the act of notifying the union members of the reason for resignation is included in the act for the affairs of the trade union; and the record does not change because only one of the candidates remains in Korea, and the vote of the chairperson of the trade union (Evidence No. 14) is determined by the majority of the incumbent members and the majority of the number of present members, and that the election of the chairperson of the trade union is

In this regard, it would be difficult to say that the intervenor's resignation does not aim at supporting the above non-party 3 remaining as a sole candidate by informing the union members of the fact that the intervenor's resignation was made and distributed in such a way as above refers to the opinion on the issue related to the election of the chairperson of the union as the operator or representative of the union, and the candidate for the chairperson. It would be difficult to say that it is an act for the affairs of the union as a pure personal activity deviating from the activities of the union.

4. In addition, even if a permit system is adopted for the distribution of printed articles, the legitimate act for the business of a trade union cannot be prevented. Thus, whether the distribution was not legitimate or not should be determined by considering the content and method of distribution of printed articles, and it should be determined by taking into account all other circumstances such as the content and method of distribution. It cannot be said that the distribution during a day-time recess, which is not an employment hour, has a bad influence on the employment of other workers, or interfere with free use of recess hours or has not interfered with the order of work (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu147 delivered on October 11, 198).

Therefore, in this case, the Intervenor did not use the Plaintiff Company’s facilities during the time of occupation, and merely delivered the printed materials to other union members without using the Plaintiff Company’s facilities during the time of occupation, which is in violation of the provision that the Plaintiff’s permission should be obtained. It cannot be said that the Intervenor’s act is not justifiable. In this case, there was an exaggerated expression in the contents of the printed materials distributed by the Intervenor, and there was an individual self-defense, and even if part of the printed materials are included differently from the facts, if the whole contents are above, it shall not be deemed as a justifiable act for

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair labor practice, and the scope of the issue is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)