(a) Requirements for an industrial action to have legitimacy;

B. Criteria for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action, where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate.

(c) The case holding that an industrial action cannot be deemed unfair on the grounds that the trade union conducted a campaign to return to a public official employed by the union members on the other hand during the period of dispute, or that the industrial action cannot be deemed unfair on the ground that the union makes excessive demand;

(d) Restrictions on the employer's right to transfer or to issue a transfer order to workers.

(e) The case holding that the dismissal order was not justifiable on the ground that it constitutes an abuse of personnel rights by violating the place of work under the labor contract, and that it constitutes an unfair labor practice in light of the timing and circumstances of the order of change of occupation, etc.

(a)the purposes of an industrial action are to maintain and improve working conditions in relation to collective bargaining with a view to having legitimacy and should be justified, and the time and procedures should be in accordance with the provisions of the laws and regulations, and the methods and attitudes thereof should be within the reasonable extent, not accompanied by violence or destruction or other acts of high-level anti-sociality;

B. In a case where there are many purposes pursuing an industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action. In a case where it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the industrial action would not have been conducted for the reason of the illegal demand, the entire industrial action shall not have the legitimacy.

C. The case holding that, in light of the fact that a trade union continued a demand to improve working conditions, such as wages and increases wages, and made a serious negotiation between the labor and management over a long-term period, even if the trade union, on the other hand, transferred the status of the US members who are union members, to the public officials in labor service, and petitioned to an external institution, and the union members wear a letter stating the same contents during the dispute period, such demand cannot be deemed unfair, because it does not exceed external activities or the secondary purpose of the industrial action, and it cannot be deemed that the industrial action is not a direct and principal purpose of the industrial action, and even if the trade union made a demand that it cannot be accepted as a company, it cannot be interpreted that the purpose of the industrial action is unfair merely because there was an excessive demand from the trade union on the part of the trade union for adjustment at the stage of collective bargaining.

D. Since the transfer or transfer of a worker is, in principle, within the authority of an employer, it is necessary to recognize a considerable discretion to the employer within the scope of occupational necessity. However, it is not allowed in cases where it violates Article 27(1) or 105 of the Labor Standards Act or there are special circumstances, such as abuse of rights. In addition, in cases where the place of work is specified in a labor contract, the consent of the worker is required to issue an order to change the transfer or transfer of a worker.

E. The case holding that an order to transfer a worker who is the place of work under a labor contract to another place shall be deemed as an unfair labor practice on the ground of the worker's trade union activity rather than an exercise of legitimate personnel rights, and thus, dismissal shall not be justified on the ground that the order was issued against the worker's will, although it was promoted, and constitutes abuse of personnel rights, and the time and progress of the order to transfer a position, etc.

(b)Article 2 of the Trade Union Act, Article 3(d) of the Trade Dispute Adjustment Act, Article 27(1)(e) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 39 of the Trade Union Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do1431 Decided October 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 2334) (Gong191, 1654) 90Nu406 Decided May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1654) (Gong1991, 1818). Supreme Court Decision 90Da27389 Decided February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1067) 90Da20428 Decided October 25, 1991 (Gong191, 2592)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 1, 201

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant 1 and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu9508 delivered on May 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules of evidence, and if the facts are as recognized by the court below, the plaintiff's dismissal of the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the " intervenor") and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 constitutes unfair dismissal or unfair labor practices.

2. The purpose of the industrial action is to maintain and improve working conditions in relation to collective bargaining with a view to having legitimacy, and its purpose is to be justifiable; the time and procedure must be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes; and the method and manner thereof must be within the reasonable extent, not accompanied by violence or destruction or other acts of high-level anti-sociality (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4006 delivered on May 14, 1991). In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, the industrial action in this case by the Sejong Enterprise Sanitary Management Trade Union should be deemed to have been justifiable in its purpose, time, procedure, etc.

3. In addition, if there are several purposes pursuing one industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the propriety of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose. If it is recognized that the industrial action would not have been conducted if there was an unfair demand, the entire industrial action shall not be justified. According to the records, the trade union in this case continues to conduct collective bargaining with the plaintiff company, and on the other hand, to request that the status of the US members working at the National Assembly be returned to the National Assembly employees as the public officials of employment of the National Assembly. During the dispute period, "the return to employment" means the fact that the plaintiff company wears the letter of objection. However, in light of the fact that the above trade union continues to make a request for improvement of working conditions such as wages, etc. to the plaintiff company, and that the above trade union has been punished for a long time between the labor and management, it cannot be deemed that the above industrial action was an unlawful or unlawful act of dismissal of the plaintiff company, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the labor union did not directly accept the above demand of the industrial action in this case.

4. As a matter of principle, the change of occupation or transfer of a worker belongs to the authority of an employer, to the extent necessary for his/her duties should be recognized to the employer. However, it is not permitted in cases where there are special circumstances, such as violation of Article 27(1) or 105 of the Labor Standards Act or abuse of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu27389, Feb. 22, 191). In addition, in cases where the place of work under a labor contract is specified, the consent of the worker should be required to change the position or transfer order. In this case, the order of changing occupation to another place where only the intervenor's stuff whose place of work is the National Assembly site is the same as it goes against his/her will, but it constitutes abuse of the personnel rights. Meanwhile, the time of the above order of changing occupation to the above intervenor is made at the time of creative work between the labor and the labor union's extension of labor contract between the employer and the labor union's rejection of the above order's exercise of employment rights against the above participant's exercise of employment rights.

5. According to the records of this case, even if the intervenor or the Nonparty considered the circumstances of the lawsuit following the dismissal, the dismissal made by the Plaintiff cannot be justified, and the decision of this case made by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be unlawful.

Although the reasoning of this part of the judgment below is not appropriate, it does not affect the result of this case.

Therefore, there is no reason to dispute from the opposite position.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)