1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be the 11,262,623 won and the Appointor to the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows, except for the cases where the letter Nos. 7, 17, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows, and therefore, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

㈒ B지회는 2010. 9. 15. 경북지방노동위원회에 쟁의행위신고 철회서를 제출하였고, 대구지방고용노동청은 2010. 9. 28. 피고 대표이사에게"직장폐쇄 이하 ‘이 사건 직장폐쇄’라고 한다

Since then, it is difficult to conclude that there is no authenticity in the labor union’s intent to return to work, in light of the fact that the labor union’s illegal behavior restraint atmosphere, multiple official documents, etc., expressed the intent to withdraw the industrial action, and submitted the individual member’s promise to provide decent labor, etc., and that the demand for violation of the law, such as Madiop, etc., is discussed within the framework of the law.

In addition, even though some of the "terms of close-out" presented by ear companies as the condition of withdrawal of lock-out is different from the confirmation of intention to return to work, which is the premise of withdrawal of lock-out, as a matter to be dealt with through labor-management negotiations, it seems unreasonable to assert it as the premise.

On September 30, 2010, the branch sent a written resolution to review whether the lock-out continues and to urge a faithful negotiation, and the B branch passed a resolution to return all the members, not individually, to the site through the members' voting, at the same time.

Meanwhile, the Defendant maintained the lock-out of this case until October 19, 2010.

As a result of the relevant litigation, ① the Plaintiffs are suspected of entering the Defendant Company into the said lock-out period on October 4, 2010.