All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of Article 32(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the proviso to Article 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), and Article 3(1) of the Act on the Establishment and Operation, etc. of H’s Labor Unions (hereinafter “H Labor Relations Adjustment Act”), comprehensively taking into account the purpose of establishing or joining a H trade union based on the constitutional limitation on the basic labor right of H, and the developments leading up to the enactment thereof, and the peculiarity of the status of H, a workers’ organization composed of H as its members may be the subject to the enjoyment of the basic labor right, only in a case where the H trade union is established by satisfying the requirements for

2. The lower court found Defendant A’s act of using the name of a trade union against Defendant A’s name, who does not fall under the case where a trade union was established as a H trade union upon dismissal, dismissal, or dismissal, and did not meet the requirements for reporting the establishment as prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 4(d) of the Trade Union Act by requiring it to join as a union member. The report on establishment was lawfully rejected. Defendant A’s use of the trade union name during the distribution of printed materials on March 9, 2010 and continued to use the name “B trade union” from around that time to October 8, 201, and recognized the fact that Defendant A was an employee of the B trade union under the name of Defendant A, and determined that the act of using the name of a trade union against Defendant A, who does not fall under the case where a trade union was established as a H trade union upon meeting the requirements for reporting the establishment as prescribed by Article 7(3) of the Trade Union Act, while disputing the validity of a disposition rejecting the report on establishment of a trade union, and rejected the Defendants’s charges.

3. Examining the above legal principles in light of the above, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.