The scope of third parties prohibited from engaging in industrial actions pursuant to Article 13-2 of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

In a case where a dismissed worker is treated as a person who does not fall under a third party to prohibit intervention in an industrial action under Article 13-2 of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Act No. 524 of December 31, 1996) and is limited to "the person who claims that the dismissal is unfair labor practice or invalid within a reasonable period of time and files a lawsuit to seek remedy for unfair labor practices or to confirm the invalidity of the dismissal and contests the validity of the dismissal." Thus, it cannot be interpreted that the dismissed worker is not a third party under the above law because the dismissed worker is disputing the validity of the dismissal through individual or collective consultation other than legal disputes. In addition, at the time of intervention in an industrial action, the dismissal does not constitute a third party under the above law.

Article 13-2 of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Act No. 5244 of December 31, 1996)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Do1579 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 272) Supreme Court Decision 91Do326 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 152), Supreme Court Decision 91Do1342 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 1070), Supreme Court Decision 93Do120 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194, 1035)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Changwon District Court Decision 98No73 delivered on December 10, 1998

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is justified that the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance that found the defendants guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the crime of obstruction of business as it is for the reasons as stated in its holding, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or any error in violation of the statutes. The grounds of appeal on

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a case where a dismissed worker is treated as a person who does not fall under a third party to prohibit intervention in an industrial action under Article 13-2 of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Act No. 524 of December 31, 1996), the term "if the dismissal is treated as a person who does not fall under a third party to prohibit the intervention in the industrial action" means that the dismissal is an unfair labor act or null and void within a reasonable period, and thus, the dismissal is limited to "the person who contests its validity by filing a lawsuit to seek relief from unfair labor practices or to confirm the invalidity of the dismissal (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Do1579, Nov. 27, 1990). Therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the dismissed worker is not a third party as referred to in the above Article 13-2 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do120, Feb. 8, 1994).

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, even if the defendants were dismissed on February 5, 1996 or on the 7th of the same month, they applied for remedy for unfair labor practices to the Gyeonggi-do Regional Labor Relations Commission, but all dismissed on May 28 of the same year, and they committed each crime under paragraph (9) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below from August to September of the same year without filing an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission or filing an action to confirm the invalidity of dismissal with the court. After being prosecuted as of November 20 of the same year, the defendants filed a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of dismissal against the company until November 20 of the same year. In light of the above circumstances, even if the defendants paid the labor union expenses before the above crime was committed, and requested the company to be reinstated, the defendants' dismissal at the time of the above crime constitutes a third party under Article 13-2 of the former Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, and the court below's judgment of first instance cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)