[1] Whether a company's management right can be seen as a constitutional right (affirmative) and its contents

[2] Criteria for setting limits to harmonize management rights with three labor rights in a case where management rights conflict with three labor rights

[3] Whether management measures can be subject to labor dispute to strengthen corporate competitiveness such as restructuring or merger (affirmative with qualification)

[4] The elements for an industrial action to be a justifiable act under the Criminal Code

[5] The case holding that a trade union's strike cannot be justified

[1] When considering the purport of the provisions of Articles 23(1), 119(1), and 15 of the Constitution in terms of business activities, every company has the freedom to freely manage and make decisions for the business or business chosen by it, and has the freedom to change (reduction of expansion) or dispose of (transfer) the business or business, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

[2] In case where the management right conflicts with three labor rights, it is necessary to set a limitation to harmonize it with the three labor rights, and rather, to promote this and to find a solution in the direction of strengthening the company's competitiveness without impairing the company's economic initiative and investment intent.

[3] Business management measures taken by a management body to strengthen the competitiveness of an enterprise, such as restructuring or merger, cannot be, in principle, subject to labor disputes, and a trade union cannot recognize legitimacy for purposes of industrial actions to oppose the implementation of such action, unless there are special circumstances, such as an urgent business necessity or a reasonable reason being promoted without a reasonable reason.

[4] In order to become a legitimate act under the Criminal Act, the following conditions should be met: (a) the subject of collective bargaining should be the subject of collective bargaining; (b) the purpose of the collective bargaining should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions; and (c) the employer should commence the collective bargaining upon the specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of workers; (d) the means and methods should be in harmony with the employer’s property rights; and (e) the employer should not be subject to the exercise of violence, unless there are special circumstances.

[5] The case holding that an industrial action is not a justifiable act because the purpose of industrial action is to oppose the relocation of a factory, which belongs to the nature of management right, and its legitimacy was lost in its purpose, and its means and method are not in harmony with the property rights of the employer, and thus it does not constitute

[1] Articles 15, 23(1), and 119(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea / [2] Articles 15, 23(1), 33(1), and 119(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Articles 1, 4, and 37(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Article 31 of the Labor Standards Act / [4] Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Articles 4 and 37(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [5] Article 20 of the Criminal Act; Articles 4 and 37(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 94Hun-Ba19, 95Hun-Ba34, 97Hun-Ga11 (Hun-Gong23, 608) decided Oct. 29, 1998 (Hun-Ma30, 808) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 99Do5380 decided Feb. 26, 200 (Gong2002, 1290, 1290) decided Feb. 11, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 200Do4169 decided Feb. 29, 2005 (Hun-Ga, 209, 2009, 2002Do5881 decided Feb. 28, 2003)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorneys Kim Young-deok et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 2002No5577 delivered on January 10, 2003

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Considering the purport of Articles 23(1), 119(1), and 15 of the Constitution in terms of corporate activities, all companies have the freedom to freely manage and make decisions for such business or business as their choice, and have the freedom to change (extension, reduction, conversion, abolition or transfer) or dispose of such business or business. This is guaranteed by the Constitution. In the case of conflict with three labor rights, the limitation of the management right should be set in a way that improves the company's economic initiative and investment desire and strengthen the company's competitiveness. From this point of view, the management measures of the management body to strengthen the company's competitiveness, such as restructuring or merger, can not be subject to labor disputes in principle, and it cannot be justified to oppose the trade union's implementation without urgent managerial needs or reasonable reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2937, Jul. 28, 2005).

On the other hand, in order to become a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, the following conditions should be met: first, the subject of collective bargaining should be the person to be a party to collective bargaining; second, the purpose of the collective bargaining should be to create autonomous bargaining between labor and management to improve working conditions; third, the employer's refusal of collective bargaining to the specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of workers should undergo the procedures prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the decision of the union members' consent; fourth, the means and method should be in harmony with the employer's property rights, as well as the exercise of violence (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the industrial action of this case does not constitute a justifiable act since the purpose of the industrial action of this case is to oppose the relocation of a factory, which belongs to the nature of the management right, and its means and method are not in harmony with the employer's property rights, and thus, the industrial action of this case does not constitute a justifiable act. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's findings of fact and decision are just and there is no violation of law as

In addition, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the duties that the defendants, who are members of the Korea Plastic Co., Ltd. trade union, interfered with are either activities conducted as part of the original duties of the above company or activities closely related to its main duties. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty of all the charges of interference with the business of the above company cannot be deemed as

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)