2015Na2121 Compensation for damages

1. Korea Press Workers' Union;

2. A headquarters of the National Press Workers' Union;

3. B

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

7. H;

8. 1

9. J.

10. K;

11. C

12.D

1. A stock company;

2. Q.

3. L.

4. M.

5. N;

6. 0

7. P.

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Da16965 Decided February 4, 2015

oly 10, 2015

December 10, 2015

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant A and Q jointly and severally with Defendant L, M, N,O, and P shall pay to the Plaintiff’s National Press Workers’ Union and the headquarters of the Korea Press Workers’ Union each of KRW 15,00,000,000 to Plaintiff C and D, respectively, 50,000,000 won to Plaintiff H, I, I, and J.K for each of the above amounts, and 50,000,000 won to Plaintiff H, I, and J.K for each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from August 29, 2012 to December 10, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Each of the remaining claims against the Defendants by the Plaintiff Korea Press Workers’ Union, Korea Press Workers’ Headquarters A, C, D, H, I, J, and K, and the claims against the Defendants by Plaintiffs B, E,F, and G are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 1/3 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff’s National Press Workers’ Union, the headquarters of the Korea Press Workers’ Union A, C, D, H, I, J,K and the Defendants are borne by the said Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, and the part arising between Plaintiff B, E, F, G and the Defendants is borne by the said Plaintiffs.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants jointly and severally pay 20,00,000 won each to the headquarters of the Plaintiff Korea Press Union and the Korea Press Union A, and 3,000,000 won each to the rest of the Plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from May 31, 2012 to the last day of service of the copy of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs: The judgment of the first instance court is modified as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant A and Q: The part against Defendant A and Q in the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the Plaintiff C and D’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) The plaintiffs

The plaintiff's National Press Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the " Press Workers' Union") is an industrial trade union composed of journalists, and the plaintiff's National Press Workers' Headquarters A (hereinafter referred to as the "A Workers' Union") is an affiliated trade union under the plaintiff's press labor union composed of workers who work in defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "A"). The plaintiff B, C, D, and E are the former executive officers of the plaintiff's union, the plaintiff's producer (PD), the plaintiff Eul, H, and I are the former executive officers of the plaintiff's union, the plaintiff's producer (PD), the plaintiff's G, H, and I are the former executive officers of the plaintiff's union, the plaintiff's J is the teacher and the representative of the R Workers' Union, and

(2) The Defendants

Defendant A is a representative public broadcasting company in Korea, and Defendant A served as the representative director (former representative director) of Defendant A, the vice president of Defendant M (former representative director), the head of the management support headquarters of Defendant N, the head of the planning and promotion headquarters where the planning and budget division in charge of approval of budget execution belongs, the audit of budget execution by Defendant P, and the head of the information contact office responsible for computer-related affairs under the management support headquarters.

(b) The details of the installation of the Trojanst program;

(1) On January 2012, the group hacking case of Defendant A’s N,O, and P around March 2012, when Plaintiff A’s M&N had been employed by Defendant A’s employees, and around March 2012 when Plaintiff A’s M&N had been in the strike, the leakage case of Defendant L’s corporate card was included in Eul’s 12-4 (The third police interrogation protocol of Q-4 (the third police interrogation protocol of Q-4)). Defendant Q stated that the above corporate card leakage accident came to have become a critical opportunity for the installation of the female female of Twit, and Defendant Q, who was appointed as the head of the Information Contents Office on April 25, 2012, was a point of view of the executive officers on the necessity of strengthening the security. The main contents were to prevent hacking, store data transmitted outside, and prepare a security program for the implementation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

(2) Following the review of the program for blocking hacking of various companies, Defendant Q has finally selected the program “Trojan” produced in Trojan. On May 18, 2012, Defendant Q installed a controler on his own computer of Defendant A’s headquarters 9th floor information content room and started the test operation after having Defendant A install the said program on the computer connected to Defendant A Artnet (hereinafter, as seen above, “troman program” in this case), from May 21, 2012 to August 23, 2012, Defendant Q inspected the data stored in the controler from May 21, 2012, and did not appear to have been inspected during the investigation process, but it did not appear to have been recorded during the investigation process from the first instance trial to the date of destruction of the data.

(3) In addition, on June 12, 2012, Defendant Q reported such security system building plans and the test conditions to executives, such as Defendant M, N,O, and P, and on August 8, 2012, Defendant Q distributed at the board of directors meeting a report stating “3. Measures” management of data leakage records - external transmission, such as data duplication (including the contents), storage of work records (including the contents), and printing of data, etc., and obtained approval for the fixed installation of the said program by explaining the operating principles to the executive officers by cutting down the list of data stored through the test operation (a suspect interrogation of Q).

(4) However, in the process of installing the female of the instant program, Defendant Q did not notify Defendant A employees of the details of the process of the introduction and installation of the said program, the data or file storage, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “DLP function,” as seen below), various characteristics of the said program, installation methods, etc., and etc., and did not receive an information protection pledge or written consent from the said employees, and on August 14, 2012, Defendant Q sent the said security measures to the Defendant, who stated the foregoing in the special weather report, “I would not have any part of the Korean language, “I would like to be exposed to the address of the left top and the lower part of “I would have lower part of A” on the screen, with the content that the personal name or document title would be treated as securityly.”

(5) Since then, the Plaintiff’s management team was placed against the installation and introduction of the female female, the foregoing program was suspended from the introduction of regularly in a state where the test was conducted, and the Defendant A deleted the female of the instant bits installed at the company employees’ computer on September 6, 2012.

(6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s labor union and labor union (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s labor union”) engaged in the business of strikeing and selling Defendant A’s normalization and fair broadcast over a period of 170 days from around January 1, 2012 to July 2012.

C. The general characteristics of Trojan program and the characteristics of the instant Trojan program are basically 'user input-based technology' and the program is allowed to produce information files or files, etc. outside (storage in an external transmission or movement storage device) by directly manipulating by the user on the computer, on the basis of ‘user input-based technology'. If a hacker intrudes on the computer network without the user’s manipulation and deducts sex reports or files from it, it is a 'sorrost preventing hack' program that plays a role in preventing hacking, which is a software quality certification program.

(2) In addition to the aforementioned basic function, the program female is accompanied by the so-called “loging” function, in a case where a computer user exchanges or receives data through web mail or Mesens, or stores data in a mobile storage device (USB), other than the aforementioned basic function, such as dLP (DL), internal data leakage function as an incidental or selective function, such as dLP (DLs), i.e., where the computer user exchanges or receives such data through web mail or Mesens, or stores such data in a mobile storage device (USB), the dialogue content and attached file of the web Mes and Mes, and files stored in the mobile storage device are stored in the central control server (However, there is no function to automatically search a specific word and store only the data containing the word, and there is a function to store the documents or appended data transmitted externally or stored files en bloc in the central control server).

(3) Under the judgment that the leakage of internal data is serious, Defendant Q established a program to include the function of “a supplementary or selective functional function” in addition to “seaing prevention chain” at the time of the installation of the female producers at the time of the installation of the female.

(4) The female of this case is that Defendant A’s members are automatically installed on a net computer that connects “A set up” portal (A setnet, S) by using a computer in the inside of the company or at home (the Defendant asserts that the connectionr can determine whether to install the program because a separate pop-up shop asking whether or not the Defendant consented to the installation of the program prior to the installation of the program is broken. However, even based on the witness T of the first instance trial, it cannot be deemed that the general pop-up shop that selects only one of the “execution, storage, and cancellation” is created without an accurate explanation on the program installed, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the connectionr has properly determined whether to install the program, considering the characteristics of the program, the necessity for installation, and the problems arising from the installation of the program).

(5) The female of the instant Troman cannot be confirmed by the establishment of a general search flag, and it cannot be confirmed whether the instant program was implemented in the work management space due to the operation of the “saved process.”

D. Criminal punishment, etc. related to the installation, operation, etc. of the female program of this case

(1) Plaintiff B, etc. accused Defendant L, M, N,0, P, and Q in relation to the installation, operation, etc. of the female of this case at the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office through consultation with Defendant L, M, N,0, P, and Q on the violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, violation of the Act on Promotion of Information Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Utilization Act), detection of contents of electronic records, etc.

(2) After completion of the relevant investigation, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office decided on December 31, 2013, that the Defendant L, M, N,O, and P are not suspected of having been accused of having been accused of having been accused of having been accused of having been accused of having been accused of having been accused of having been accused of having committed all other charges. The part on the Defendant ② on the “violation of the other suspicion” on the “Violation of the Act on Promotion of Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network, etc.)” on the same day, recognized the suspicion and filed a summary order of KRW 7 million with the Seoul Southern District Court.

(3) Defendant Q received a summary order from the Seoul Southern District Court and filed a regular trial. The court of first instance (Seoul Southern District Court 2014DaMa998) found Defendant Q to be guilty on August 12, 2014, and on May 18, 2012, Defendant Q installed the “roging” line with the “roging capacity to store external transmission files to Defendant A Information Contents control server,” and imposed a fine of KRW 7 million on the above Defendant (the same shall apply to the crime committed in the above judgment) by deeming that Defendant Q violated other’s secrets by storing and inspecting 525 e-mail, files, etc. sent by Defendant A to a computer from June 7, 2012 to August 23, 2012.

(4) Defendant Q appealed against this (Seoul Southern District Court 2014No1431). In the above appellate court, the prosecutor applied for changes in the list of offenses (2) to the period from June 8, 2012 to July 13, 2012. The prosecutor applied for changes in the list of offenses (2) and the above appellate court.

On February 12, 2015, the court rendered a judgment of innocence on the grounds that the content of the remaining files except the files listed in the attached list of crimes (2) cannot be deemed to constitute “other’s secrets” under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and sentenced a fine of KRW 5 million to be convicted only on the attached list of crimes (2). Accordingly, Defendant Q filed a final appeal by the court of final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3898).

(5) According to the list of crimes in the separate sheet of crime (hereinafter referred to as the "list of crime in the first instance"), the number of files stored and perused by Defendant Q is 27 times in the case of Plaintiff C-related files, 183, 184, 207, 230, 256, 356, 39, 39, 400, 405, 408, 412 through 416, 509, 517 or 525: Provided, That the number of files perused by Plaintiff C-related files is 17; 16 times in the case of Plaintiff C-related files, 45 through 52, 65, 65, 394, 405, 405, 408, 412 through 416, 517 or 525; 16 days in the case of Plaintiff C-related files; 2.3 days in the case of Plaintiff C-related files, 16 days in the second instance.

(6) In addition, in the case of Plaintiff K, who is not an employee of Defendant A, the former chairperson of Defendant A, was removed from Defendant A, and worked as an independent press producer, and installed the instant Twit on the said computer in the process of accessing the Plaintiff’s Press Labor Relations Management Office’s computer, and thereby, the content of Plaintiff K’s personal mail was stored in the female controler around August 22, 2012, and the contact process with the Plaintiff J was unknown, but the main text of the 10th day was still set up in the 1st day of August 29, 2012 to the 20th day of August 1, 2012, each of the above 20th day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 5th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 20th day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 3th day of the 20th day of the Defendant Q.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) On May 2012, the time when the instant Troman was installed was when the industrial action of the Plaintiff’s union was taken place in the middle of May 2012. The Defendants infringed not only the industrial action of the Plaintiff’s union but also the daily activities of the Plaintiff’s union by collecting and reading major materials of the labor union, including the Plaintiff’s strike site of the Plaintiff’s Union and Labor Relations Management Director. (2) The Defendants, a data subject, without the consent of the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, J, and K (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s individual”), installed the instant Troman’s personal information on his computer and collected and stored the Plaintiff’s individual’s personal information, but also the Plaintiff’s personal information was infringed. Accordingly, the Defendants are obligated to pay the amount of money as stated in their respective claims for damages for a tort.

B. The defendants' assertion

(1) The Defendants, other than Defendant Q, are outside the text of the same specialized field of the hacking prevention program, and only approved the introduction of the instant Tro, which is a highly outstanding hacking prevention program, under the judgment that it is appropriate for Defendant A’s computer network protection, and there is no responsibility for damages, since the Tro, which is a highly excellent hacking prevention program, did not know at all about the option, function, and operating principles of female options.

(2) Although Defendant Q made access to the files collected from a control server, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs’ right to self-determination of personal information was infringed since the above files were sent out to the outside and made public. ② Defendant Q perused files for the purpose of testing in advance for the introduction of female workers. ③ Defendant Q’s access to the files stored in a control server constitutes a justifiable act as a security officer as prescribed by the Personal Information Protection Act, for the purpose of carrying out the duties of building a security system. Moreover, it does not constitute an emergency evacuation to avoid an imminent danger of leakage information and external hacking in the situation where domestic financial institutions or media organizations suffered a large damage due to a hacking accident.

3. Occurrence of and grounds for liability for damages;

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) The fundamental rights in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea due to the collection, storage, and perusal of information are primarily defensive rights to protect an individual’s free sphere from a violation of public authority, but on the other hand, embodying objective value order, which is the basic decision of the Constitution, and its impact on all legal areas including private law, and thus private legal relations among private persons shall also be governed in compliance with the basic rights provisions in the Constitution (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288, Apr. 22, 2010);

(A) Violation of the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination of personal information

1) In the case of Plaintiff C, D, H, I, J, and K (hereinafter “Plaintiff 6”).

A) The right to self-determination of personal information derived from the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution, which provides for human dignity and value, and the right to pursue happiness, and the right to self-determination of personal information guaranteed by the freedom of privacy under Article 17 of the Constitution, is the right for an individual to decide on what extent he/she would know and how to use. Personal information subject to protection of his/her own right is characterized by an individual’s personality, such as body, faith, social status, status, etc. It includes not only personal information that belongs to an individual’s inner life but also personal information that was formed or already disclosed in the public life without being limited to personal information. Furthermore, it constitutes a limitation on the right to self-determination of personal information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da4933, Jul. 24, 2014; 2003Hun-Ma25, Jul. 21, 2005).

C) Therefore, the information stored in the female control server of this case constitutes personal information subject to the protection of the right to self-determination of personal information, and the act of collecting and keeping such information by storing it in a package of control server and allowing access to it constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff 6’s right to self-determination of personal information by the subject of information (the right to self-determination of personal information is the right of the subject of information to decide when and to what extent the subject of information should be known and used, and the right to self-determination of personal information is the right of the subject of information’s own decision. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion that the file’s files stored in the control server should be sent externally to the outside and disclosed to the public is rejected as contrary to the above legal principles)

2) In the case of Plaintiffs B, E, F, and G (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff 4”), it is presumed that the said Plaintiffs were installed in the computers used by the said Plaintiffs. However, in detail, there is no evidence to prove that the said Plaintiffs’ personal information or data were stored or perused in the female control server. Thus, the Plaintiff 4’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(B) Infringement of the right to organize and the right to collective action of the Plaintiff’s union

1) Article 33(1) of the Constitution guarantees the workers’ independent right to organize and collective action. The above right to organize shall be deemed not only the workers’ right to organize but also the organization’s own right to organize (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu6726, Dec. 2, 1992; 95Hun-Ma14, Nov. 25, 1999). The right to organize includes the individual right to organize, that is, the workers’ right to organize and join a trade union, and the right that workers’ organization may continue, maintain, develop, and expand the workers’ right to organize. In addition, the above right to collective action includes the right to strike where a labor dispute occurs, which means the right to act that impedes the normal operation of business (see Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ba168, Apr. 29, 2010).

2) According to the above evidence, the point at which the instant Twits were installed was when the Plaintiff’s industrial action was established as a patrol officer on May 2012. Even if only the files were stored in the control server and Defendant Qacks perusal, the Defendants’ act of gathering and distributing video images for public relations of the Plaintiff, the ALE Secretariat as well as the minutes of the personnel committee (personal confidential information about major disciplinary actions against the union members), which were submitted to the court in relation to the case of interference with the duties of the union executives and the union members, was prohibited from perusal except for the personnel committee members). The Defendants’ act of gathering and distributing confidential information of the Plaintiff’s industrial action by notifying the union members of the content of the internal discussions related to the signing activities of the union, the list of the union executives and employees of the public relations list, the list of union members’ right to defense, the minutes of the union’s meeting, the minutes of the media-related industrial action, and the information pertaining to the union members’ act of gathering and keeping the information pertaining to the union members’ activities, which appears to have been likely to affect the Plaintiff’s industrial action.

(2) Judgment as to the defendants' assertion

(A) The Defendants asserted that Defendant Q Q’s perusal of the files was for the purpose of the test in order to introduce the instant Twit, and thus, it constitutes an emergency evacuation to avoid an imminent danger, i.e., a legitimate act committed as an officer of the Information Security Book, and an internal information leakage and external hacking accident.

(B) From the above facts, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the period of test operation of the female of the instant Troman, was considerably long compared to ordinary cases in the month of approximately three months, ② the female of the instant Troman functioned as the so-called “ro”, ③ the instant Troman could be classified as the user monitoring program, ③ the above program was installed without the consent of its officers and employees, ④ the operation of the above program was possible for only the executives and employees who introduced or agreed to introduce only the function of blocking hacking with the exception of the routeing function, ④ the need to completely implement the above program before obtaining the prior consent of its officers and employees. ④ When the above program was implemented, there is a possibility of infringement of the right to personal information, ⑤ The Defendant Qua was also aware of the right to personal information before its installation and implementation, ③ Nevertheless, Defendant Q Q without the consent of individual members and the minimum measures necessary for the public announcement, and the Defendants’ act could not be seen as having been done with the intent or negligence on the pertinent file of the instant Qroman.

B. Grounds for the defendants' liability for damages

(1) Defendant 0 infringed the right to self-determination of personal information, the right to organize, and the right to collective action by arbitrarily installing the instant Troman without the consent of the Plaintiffs and collecting, keeping, and inspecting the information of the Plaintiff’s union members and the Plaintiff 6, thereby infringing on the right to self-determination of personal information, the right to organize and the right to collective action.

There are liability for damages caused by illegal acts.

(2) Defendant A

Pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act, Defendant Q as the user of Defendant Q, is liable to compensate for the damages incurred to the above Plaintiffs in connection with the performance of its duties as the head of the Information Contents Office.

(3) According to the following circumstances that can be seen from the facts acknowledged by the above basic facts and the evidence as above, Defendant L, M, N,O, P (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants”), the remaining Defendants, without prior consent of the Plaintiffs, knew that Defendant Q installed the female of this case in a lump sum to collect and preserve personal information, and knowingly assisted or abetted it. Thus, they are jointly and severally liable with Defendant Q as joint tortfeasor pursuant to Article 760 of the Civil Act.

(A) As the chief office of the Information Content Office under the management support headquarters, Defendant Q carries out duties under the specific direction of N, who is the head of the management support headquarters, and Defendant P was the head of the Planning and Publicity Headquarters, which has the authority to approve the execution of the budget, and the head of the Planning and Publicity Headquarters, which has the authority to approve the execution of the budget. When executing the budget, Defendant M was in charge of audit and inspection. Defendant M was the vice president and the representative director. As such, Defendant M was the main office of the Information Communications Network, the introduction and installation of the female of the instant Tro, which requires a high amount of budget, was conducted with Defendant Q Q ? Defendant NN ? Defendant M ? Defendant M ? Defendant L was conducted with the approval of the management support headquarters (written evidence No. 8), Defendant P was also reported to Defendant Q 0, and P (written evidence No. 9-1, 3, and 4). According to each written evidence No. 9-1, Defendant Q was sent to Defendant N, and the head of the Planning and Information Headquarters, as soon.

I received the order. The Vice President stated that he would have dice to prepare for the advance publicity materials about the operation of the scam, that the head of the planning headquarters would have been carried out as soon as possible, and that the budget armed forces would be carried out without notifying the employees. It means that he would be carried out after reporting the thickness of the internal audit." On August 10, 2012, he reported to the executive meeting about the strengthening of IT security according to the scheduled plan of .8.8. (2) The auditor before the audit, the vice president, and the head of the planning headquarters did not ask his personal report with the thickness of the head of the planning headquarters, and there was no special question about the actual hacking case, and the head of the planning headquarters stated that he would be dice with interest, and on August 14, 2012, he sent the content of the IT security measure to the defendant 0 who sent it to the e-mail address and the content of the e-mail screen that he sent to the e-mail screen."

(B) On June 12, 2012, Defendant Q reported the plan for the establishment of the female security system and the test situation to executives, such as Defendant M, N,O, and P, and distributed the time limit for reporting the functions of the female female to the effect that the instant twit will copy the data of the inside or store the external transmission mail, etc. at the open meeting on August 8, 2012. Defendant Q distributed the time limit for reporting the functions of the female twit to the effect that this data were copied or stored, etc. The data stored through the testing and operation of the female twit explained the operating principles to the executives and approved the fixed installation of the said program. At the time of the foregoing reporting and approval, Defendant Q had already been stored and perused the information of Plaintiff NA and 6 Plaintiff at the time of the foregoing reporting and approval, the remaining Defendants are deemed to have been fully aware of the functions and operation principles of the female twit.

(C) In light of the fact that Defendant Q puts in an information contact book and installed the instant line, the Defendant L was a representative director in charge of Defendant A’s business, who has the ultimate authority to make a decision on important business affairs such as the implementation of the “plan to strengthen IT security”, and that there was an urgent conflict between the Plaintiff’s union and the Plaintiff’s union at the time of strike and the maintenance of the representative director’s position, it seems that Defendant Q has been sufficiently informed of the installation and test operation of the female female.In conclusion, the theory of the lawsuit is that Defendant L also has considerable interest in the construction and test operation of the Plaintiff’s union.

Therefore, Defendant A and Q jointly have a duty to compensate for damages inflicted on the Plaintiffs by jointly and severally with Defendant Q, and by collecting, keeping, and reading the female of this case’s Twit and the information of Plaintiff Union members and Plaintiff 6, thereby infringing on their right to self-determination of personal information or right to organize and right to collective action.

4. Scope of damages.

A. Considering the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the actual time and background of the female female, the content and scope of the collected information, the contents and importance of the infringed plaintiffs' rights, and the frequency of the act of collecting, keeping, and inspecting the above plaintiffs, it is reasonable to set the damages amount of KRW 15,00,000 for the plaintiff's union, KRW 1,50,000 for the plaintiff's union, KRW 1,50,000 for the plaintiff's union, and KRW 50,000 for the plaintiff's union, and KRW 1,50,000 for the plaintiff's union, respectively.

B. Therefore, Defendant A and Q jointly and severally with Defendant Q, and the rest of the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s Trade Union KRW 15,00,000, KRW 1500,000, KRW 1500,000, KRW 500,00 each to Plaintiff H, I, J, and K respectively, and each of the above money from August 29, 2012, on which Plaintiff J’s personal domain date is stored, it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendants’ obligations from August 29, 2012. If recognized as the date of the final judgment, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until December 10, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims against the plaintiffs' union members and the defendants of the plaintiff 6 shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. The claims against the defendants by the plaintiff 4 shall be dismissed as there is no ground. Since the part concerning the plaintiff's union members and the plaintiff 6 in the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the plaintiff's union members and the plaintiff 6 shall be unfair with some different conclusions, the appeal by the above plaintiffs shall be partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above,

The presiding judge, Kim Jong-han

Judge Lee Jin-jin

Judge next: