The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 16(1)8 and (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”) allow a trade union to make a structural change at a general meeting established and continued by a trade union, with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent union members and the consent of at least 2/3 of the union members present.

This provision covers a trade union established pursuant to the Trade Union Act. However, even if it is a subordinate organization of an industrial trade union’s subdivision, sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da96120, Feb. 19, 2016). The purport of the Trade Union Act to allow a trade union to make a structural change is to ensure that the legal relationship surrounding a trade union, such as the previous rights and obligations on property, the validity of a collective agreement, etc., with respect to a trade union, can be maintained and succeeded as they are to a new trade union, by allowing a trade union to make a structural change without undergoing the dissolution, liquidation,

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Du1151, Dec. 29, 2016). However, in a case where a subdivision, etc. of an industrial trade union fails to have the substance corresponding to a company-level trade union or a workers’ organization similar to a company-level trade union and is unable to make a structural change due to its failure to have the substance of an unincorporated association as a workers’ organization similar to the substance corresponding to