All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants C and D limited liability companies, the lower court acknowledged each of the facts indicated in the judgment by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by them, and on the following grounds, found Defendant C and D limited liability companies (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) guilty of violating the Trade Union and Trade Union Relations Adjustment Act on September 18, 2012 among the facts charged against Defendant C and D limited liability companies.

Even if the instant collective agreement provides that a request for collective bargaining shall be made at least ten days prior to September 18, 2012, the request for collective bargaining cannot be deemed null and void on September 17, 2012, which was designated as the collective bargaining date, and regardless of whether the request for collective bargaining can be made on September 18, 2012, N, a negotiating member, regardless of whether the request for collective bargaining may be made on September 18, 2012, has sufficient grounds to visit the office of the instant company trade union in September 18, 2012 for the preparation or defense related to the commencement of collective bargaining and the subsequent measures, so the entry of the Defendant company shall be allowed as within the scope of legitimate trade union activities. N has intent to enter for any purpose other than normal trade union activities.

Unless it is recognized that there are circumstances such as substantial interference with the management and supervision of the business operation of Defendant Company by entering or leaving N, Defendant C and Defendant Company’s refusal to enter or leave N constitutes unfair labor practices which control or intervene in the organization and operation of the instant trade union.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of a collective agreement and unfair labor practices due to the control and intervention of trade union activities.

2. As to Defendant A and Defendant B’s appeal, Defendant A and Defendant B did not submit the appellate brief within the submission period, and Defendant B did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal.

3. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.