Whether an industrial action constitutes an industrial action which interferes with the normal operation of the company’s business by inciting workers to collectively refuse any overtime work normally engaged in by an agreement (affirmative)

Even if overtime work is performed by the parties’ agreement, if it impedes the normal operation of the company’s business by inciting workers to collectively refuse the overtime work ordinarily committed by them, it shall be deemed an industrial action.

Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, Article 42(3) of the Labor Standards Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Msan District Court Decision 90No968 delivered on February 6, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the violation of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act:

If the court below and the court of first instance examined the evidence cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized each crime of the defendant's industrial action without due process is acceptable, and it cannot be said that there is a mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

Even if overtime work is performed by the agreement between the parties, if it impedes the normal operation of the company's business by inciting workers to collectively refuse the overtime work ordinarily committed by workers, it shall be deemed an industrial action.

In addition, even if there is a ground for the claim that can be responsible to the employer in the reason of industrial action, it does not constitute a crime.

In addition, the argument that the theory of theory is obsting the fact-finding, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, is groundless (According to the records, the defendant can see that he has led to the confession of all of the facts charged on the first trial date of the court of first instance).

With respect to interference with business:

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below on this part is acceptable, and even if such an act is to strengthen the partnership binding force, it cannot be said that the establishment of the fact-finding or the crime of interference with business by the court below is hindered.

With respect to violence:

In light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the defendant's act of assaulting the victim as stated in its holding is justified and acceptable, and such an act cannot be viewed as self-defense like theory.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)