Criteria for determining whether the case constitutes a "new trade union" under Article 5 (1) of the Addenda to the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act;

Article 5 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 28, 2001) provides that "worker may freely organize a trade union or join it." Article 5 (1) of the Addenda provides that "No new trade union shall be established with a trade union until December 31, 2001, if a trade union is organized in one business or workplace, notwithstanding Article 5, until December 31, 2001." It limits the establishment of a number of trade unions for a limited period of time. In determining whether a newly established trade union constitutes a new trade union with an existing trade union with an existing trade union under the above Addenda, it shall not be merely based on the formal provision on the organization subject to the regulations of the existing trade union, and it shall be examined whether a trade union is in the same form as an existing trade union in comprehensive comparison with the content on each trade union subject to the organization subject to the regulations of each existing trade union, the contents determined by each trade union subject to the organization, the actual organization of each member, and the organization scope of each trade union.

Article 5 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 28, 2001); Article 5 (1) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 6456 of March 13, 1997)

Supreme Court Decision 94Da3494 delivered on October 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3757), Supreme Court Decision 98Du898 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 859), Supreme Court Decision 2001Du5361 Delivered on July 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2074)

Hong-Seoul Trade Union (Attorney Park Nam-nam, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Head of Dong-gu (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorneys Kim Byung-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hong-Pak Store Trade Union (Law Firm Shin & Yang, Attorneys Kim Byung-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2001Nu3761 delivered on July 26, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 5 of the former Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6456, Mar. 28, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "workers may freely organize or join a trade union." Article 5 (1) of the Addenda provides that "where a trade union is organized in a single business or workplace, it shall not be established until December 31, 2001 with the trade union." It limits the establishment of a new trade union by providing that "if a trade union is organized in a single business or workplace, it shall not be established with a new trade union that shall be organized until December 31, 201." In order to determine whether a new trade union constitutes a new trade union that shall be organized with the existing trade union under the above Addenda, it shall not be merely based on the formal provisions concerning the organization subject to the regulations of the existing trade union, the contents of each trade union subject to establishment, the contents of each trade union subject to organization determined by the regulations of each existing trade union, and whether a new trade union is established in the same form of 194.5.

The court below reasoned that the plaintiff's claim in this case seeking cancellation of the disposition of this case issued to the intervenor joining the defendant (hereinafter "the intervenor joining the defendant's labor union") is an infringement of legal interests directly and specifically protected pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the Act, if the newly established labor union constitutes multiple trade unions. However, if it does not constitute multiple trade unions, even if it is indirectly or factual and economic interests as an existing trade union within the same company, it does not have any legal interests that can be infringed upon by whether the newly established labor union is established or not under the current law that takes the principle of report of establishment. Thus, the issue of whether the plaintiff has legal interests to seek cancellation of the disposition of this case should be based on the premise that the intervenor's labor union constitutes multiple trade unions stipulated in Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the Act in relation to the plaintiff's labor union, and determined that the plaintiff's performance-based bonuses and activities were not unlawful by taking into account the following circumstances, namely, until there is a movement under the intervenor's labor union's labor union formation and operation scope, etc.

In light of the records and relevant statutes and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 5 (1) of the Addenda of the Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)