[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the union shop agreement shall apply to the case where a union shop agreement is withdrawn from a trade union to which the union shop agreement was concluded and join another trade union having independent collective bargaining rights as an independent entity while sharing the union target

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below on the purport of Article 5 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 5 (3) of the Addenda

[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the union shop agreement shall be applied to this case, on the ground that, where a trade union that has the right to collective bargaining in the company actually exists multiple, and the foundation of the union shop agreement becomes the foundation of the union shop agreement in fact, the union that has the right to collective bargaining in the company has been abandoned, and if it is allowed to withdraw from the trade union for which the union shop agreement was concluded and join another trade union that has an independent collective bargaining right while sharing the object of organization, the union shop agreement shall be abandoned as a lubiful and lubly.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the purpose of Article 5 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6456 of Mar. 28, 2001) and Article 5 (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6456 of Mar. 13, 1997) permits the establishment of multiple labor unions, which have been prohibited in the past, and the collective bargaining methods for the simplification of bargaining windows, etc. are not prepared until December 31, 2001, and thereby preventing confusion in labor-management relations due to the dualization of bargaining windows from a single company

[1] Articles 5 and 81 subparagraph 2 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 28, 2001); Article 5 (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 13, 1997) / [2] Articles 5 and 81 subparagraph 2 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 28, 2001); Article 5 (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 13, 1997)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5361 decided Jul. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2074)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Busan, Law Office, Attorneys Jeong Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Traffic Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 99Na7794 delivered on April 12, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs were members of the above-mentioned taxi labor union that did not have the effect of concluding the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement with the 198 Busan District taxi labor union that did not have the right to withdraw from the 20th Busan District taxi labor union because they did not have the right to withdraw from the 3th Busan District taxi labor union because they did not have the right to participate in the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement with the 198 Busan District taxi labor union. The lower court concluded the so-called "the company must be dismissed immediately when the employees refuse to join the labor union or withdraw from the 20th Busan District taxi labor union." The lower court determined that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to participate in the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement with the 2th Busan District taxi labor union that did not have the right to participate in the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement with the 3th Busan District taxi labor union, and that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to participate in the above-mentioned collective bargaining agreement with the 20th Busan District Labor Union.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the purport of the relevant statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the validity scope of union shop agreement or by violating law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)