All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants’ act constitutes an inevitable act committed by the Defendants due to an inevitable act committed to expand the place of business, in light of the following: (a) consultation for the relocation of the National Metal Workers’ Union B branches and several times for the expansion of the place of business (factory and parking lot); (b) consultation for the relocation of the Trade Union's office; (c) consultation was concluded due to the unfair demand and refusal of consultation under the Trade Union; and (d) four members or three of them were dismissed and actually did not use the above container office.

2. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① even if there was a conflict between the Defendant Company and the Trade Union, the Defendant Company’s act of blocking the electricity and telecommunications facilities of the Trade Union’s office and moving a container before the entrance of the Trade Union’s office instead of due process was in violation of the collective agreement on the provision of facilities and convenience and participating in the operation of the Trade Union. ② As to the part on blocking electricity and telecommunications facilities, the Defendants asserted that there was no longer any way to cut electricity to move the container, but the Defendants could have sufficiently moved the container if they repeated the electric power lines fixed in the steel network (Evidence No. 244,255). ③ In relation to the part on the shut-off of the entrance of the Trade Union’s office, it appears that the use situation of the factory was relatively insufficient, and the contents of the container were not specially managed (Evidence by social norms and social norms).