Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Noh Sung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Shin Young-cheon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 14, 2009

Busan District Court Decision 2008Gahap8075 Decided June 12, 2009

1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's additional claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the judgment of the first instance. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 93,653,520 won, 76,293,520 won, 102,80,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 73,400,000 won, and 73,40,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of a request for correction of claim and cause of claim until the day of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (for each claim, 30,000,000 won and delay damages therefrom are the claim for consolation money for tort, and the payment of the remaining amount to the plaintiff 1,136,70,700 won, and 307,706,370,707, and 207,307, respectively, for each of the plaintiff 1,6,7,7007,700

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning of this case is as stated in the part corresponding to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except as set forth below with respect to the additional claims in the trial; and (b) thus, it is cited by Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on additional claims

The defendant, as the real owner of the non-party 1 corporation, was conducting a lock-out by December 31, 2003, which lacks legitimacy as an industrial action, beyond a passive and defensive means on July 3, 2003. Furthermore, without disregarding the worker's request for the withdrawal of a lock-out after a lock-out, the worker, including the plaintiffs, retired from office on January 1, 2004. On January 2, 2004, the non-party 2 corporation was newly established after the closure of the non-party 1 corporation, and the non-party 2 corporation was newly established after which the non-party 1 corporation was closed, the defendant dismissed the plaintiffs without justifiable reasons in the form of closing the business with the intention to file a complaint against the non-party 1 corporation or dismiss the workers belonging to the trade union who filed a civil petition against the non-party 1 corporation during the lock-out period. Accordingly, the above series of the defendant's acts are not sufficient to evaluate the

However, as to the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, it is reasonable to see that at least the defendant's non-party 2 corporation was aware of the damage equivalent to consolation money and the perpetrator caused by the defendant's illegal act on January 2, 2004, and it is evident in the record that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription as to the defendant's claim for consolation money was filed at the trial of the party seeking consolation money on October 12, 2009 after three years from the short-term extinctive prescription period as stipulated in Article 766 (1) of the Civil Code. Thus, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription as to this point is reasonable, and the plaintiff's argument about the claim for additional

As to this, the plaintiffs asserted that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defendant's tort continued to occur, and thus, the extinctive prescription has not been completed. However, the damages equivalent to consolation money for dismissal, etc. are only caused once again at that time, and cannot be deemed to continue to occur at that time due to the lapse of time, such as the payment date of wages. Therefore, the above plaintiffs'

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all of the plaintiffs' appeal and appeal in the court of first instance are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)