[1] Requirements for an employer’s lock-out to be recognized as a legitimate industrial action

[2] In a case where a lock-out by an employer is not deemed a legitimate industrial action, whether the act of an employee entering a place of business allowed to enter the place of business constitutes a crime of intrusion upon residence (negative)

[1] A lock-out by an employer must be recognized as a legitimate industrial action by an employer, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the negotiating attitude and process of the employer and workers, the purpose and method of industrial action by workers, and the degree of the degree of the degree of the strike received by the employer.

[2] Where an employer’s lock-out is not recognized as a legitimate industrial action, an act of entering a place of business where an employee is allowed to enter the place of business does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence, barring any special circumstances.

[1] Article 46 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 46 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da34331 delivered on May 26, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1493)

Defendant and 11 others

Prosecutor

Attorneys Kim Kim-soo et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2001No1004 delivered on April 19, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

An employer’s lock-out may be acknowledged as an employer’s legitimate industrial action, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the negotiating attitude and process between the employer and workers, the purpose and method of industrial action by workers, and the degree of the degree of the degree of the shock that the employer receives (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da34331, May 26, 200). In cases where a lock-out by the employer is not acknowledged as a legitimate industrial action, barring any special circumstances, an act of entry into the workplace where ordinary access is allowed does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence.

In the same purport, the court below determined that the defendants' act of entering the parking lot, restaurant, trade union, etc. where general teachers and staff are not specially prohibited from entering the Seoul National University does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence in light of the following reasons: (a) in light of the circumstance, purpose, and method of industrial action and the number of union members participating in industrial action; and (b) industrial action, there was a small number of union members participating in industrial action; and (c) industrial action, there was no special obstacle to the operation of the South National University; and (d) therefore, the lock-out by the South National University cannot be deemed justifiable as a defense against industrial action by the defendants; and (e) the defendants' act of entering the parking lot, restaurant, trade union, etc. where general teachers and staff are not specially prohibited from entering the Seoul National University; and

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)