(a) Purposes and methods of becoming a justifiable industrial action;

B. Criteria for determining whether an industrial action is justifiable in a case where there are various purposes of seeking the industrial action and some of them are not justifiable

(c) The case holding that an industrial action is justifiable in its purpose, where it is deemed that the removal of a part of workers from office is a retaliation against the operation of a trade union's research autonomous defense movement, and that the industrial action is justified in its purpose, if it can be seen that the removal of a part of workers from office is a retaliation against the operation of the trade union's research autonomous defense movement.

(d) The case holding that an industrial action is unfair on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the methods and patterns of the industrial action are socially reasonable, such as where the workers intrude into the research institute room, write out the contents which defame their honor on the wall, corridor, etc. of the entrance of the research institute room, and attaching a poster with the same contents on the wall and corridor;

A. In order for industrial action to be justified, the purpose of industrial action should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management, and the exercise of violence is against the basic principles of legal order, so it is not permitted in any case. Of this, the allegations by the parties to labor relations as referred to in Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act refer to all the arguments regarding working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, etc., as stipulated in Article 2 of the same Act, and it is not necessarily limited to the maintenance and improvement of the economic status of workers such as wages.

B. In a case where there are many purposes pursuing a single industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main purpose or genuine purpose.

C. The case holding that even if workers demanded the withdrawal of the president of the research institute in the course of industrial action, it is inappropriate for the industrial action to be justified in its purpose on the ground that it is a retaliation against certain workers, which is a key issue of the trade union, such as the removal of a certain worker from office, is sought, and that it can be seen that there is a request for the improvement of working conditions of union members, if it can be seen that the industrial action is a collective bargaining issue.

(d) The case holding that an industrial action is unfair on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the methods or attitudes of performing the industrial action, such as intrusion upon the research institute's office, printing the contents of impairing the honor of the president at the entrance of the research institute's access road, the entrance wall of the research institute's room, and the corridor, posting a poster with the same contents attached, delaying publication of magazines for 10 days by means of putting together the printing site, sending printed materials to 4,300 trading lines and each university across the country, inviting a third party, engaging in collective action outside the research institute's office, posting and distributing posters with the contents of impairing the reputation of the research institute's office, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the methods or patterns of doing the industrial action have social reasonableness.

(a)(c)Article 3(a) of the Trade Dispute Adjustment Act; Article 2 and Article 13(b) of the same Act; (d) Article 2 of the Trade Union Act; Articles 27 and 12(3) of the Labor Standards Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do1431 delivered on October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2334), 90Do2852 delivered on January 29, 1991 (Gong1991, 907), 91Do324 delivered on May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1817) (Gong1992, 92, 92, 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 1990 (Gong190, 1306)

Attorney Park Yong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and 18 others

Attorney Lee Hun-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na11768 delivered on August 22, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, found that the defendant research institute was subject to disciplinary action on August 198, 198 due to non-party 1 and 2, a member of the plaintiffs' research institute, who was a member of the plaintiffs' research institute, and was subject to disciplinary action on August 30, 198, due to non-party 1's refusal to obtain approval of the printing production of the research report accompanied by the relevant plaintiff, and was subject to disciplinary action on the same ground. The defendant research institute's disposition against the above non-party was a retaliation against the non-party 30th of the same month's failure to submit a statement of time according to disciplinary action. The plaintiffs' disposition against the above non-party 1 was an affirmative action against the non-party 2's main interest in the labor union and the withdrawal of the above disposition and the retirement of the head of the defendant research institute's opinion from September 12 to December 12 of the same year, 1989. The defendant research institute did not have legitimate authority to dismiss the plaintiff's disciplinary action or disciplinary action against the non-party 2.

Industrial actions must be aimed at creating autonomous negotiations between labor and management in order for them to be justified. In such a way, violence events are against the basic principles of law and order, so it is not allowed in any case. In order to deem that labor relations parties' arguments as referred to in Article 3 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act refer to all the claims about working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, etc. as provided in Article 2 of the same Act, and they are not limited to maintaining and improving the economic status of workers, such as wages (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2852 delivered on January 29, 1991). In addition, if various purposes of industrial actions are to be pursued in a single industrial action and some of them are not justifiable, the legitimacy of such industrial actions should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5204 delivered on January 21, 1992).

Although the plaintiffs demanded the withdrawal of the head of the defendant research institute in the industrial action of this case, the main purpose of the industrial action is to seek withdrawal of the removal of the above workers, as recognized by the court below, as a retaliation against the leading party of the research autonomous defense movement, which is the core interest of the trade union, and according to the records, it can be seen that the industrial action of this case can be regarded as a matter of collective bargaining. Thus, the industrial action of this case is justifiable in its purpose, and even if the purpose of the industrial action of this case is not legitimate, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action.

However, as the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the plaintiffs infringed on the defendant research institute's office by the method or attitude of the industrial action. The defendant research institute's entrance approach to the front of the defendant research institute and the wall and corridor of the warden's entrance were written with the contents of damaging the honor of the defendant research institute, attached a poster with the same contents, delayed publication of magazines for 10 days with a house for printing site. They sent a 4,300 printed printed matter against the defendant research institute's president to each company and each university, sent a 4,300 printed matter against the defendant research institute's president, by inviting a third party, participated in a collective action outside the workplace, and carried out a poster and printed matter that defames the reputation of the defendant research institute's president at the vicinity of the office of the defendant research institute. Thus, this case's industrial action is unreasonable since the plaintiffs' right to discipline the defendant research institute and the defendant research institute cannot be viewed as being responsible for the disciplinary action against the defendant's employer.

Therefore, although the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of the purpose of industrial action, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment below, and there was no ground for 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 Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)