beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 48,410,509 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from April 23, 2013 to October 20, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established to run a taxi transport business on December 31, 1986. A subdivision of the former North Korean Headquarters of the Korea Taxi Industry Workers’ Union (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is a trade union composed of the Plaintiff’s employees, and Defendant B is a person dismissed on December 31, 2014 while working as the chairperson of the Defendant Association from July 22, 1993.
B. The Defendant Union passed a resolution on September 26, 201 on the strike on the ground that the Plaintiff was in arrears with wages and scrapped the vehicle in operation, and commenced industrial action from October 1, 201, and did not undergo the conciliation procedure under Article 45(2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “relevant statutes”), which is the requirement for the transfer of wages, and on that ground, the Defendant B, the president of the Defendant Union, was indicted for a fine of KRW 1,00,000.
Defendant B requested a formal trial (the Jeonju District Court 2014No687) to the effect that the Defendant was not guilty. However, the above court rendered a judgment of conviction of KRW 1,00,000 on May 22, 2015, and the above case is pending in the appellate court (No. 2015No725) as of the appeal by Defendant B.
C. On October 5, 201, the Plaintiff was conducting a lock-out in response to the strike conducted by the Defendant Union, but the Defendant Union expressed its intent to return to work on October 12, 201, and subsequently withdrawn the lock-out on November 11, 201 to the Defendant Union on November 14, 201. Thus, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant Union of the resumption of work and proposed that the employees and relevant agencies hold a general meeting of employees participating in the work. Then, the Plaintiff held a general meeting of employees on three occasions from the 13th of the same month to January 31, 2012.
However, the defendant union continued disputes on the grounds that the plaintiff union decided not only with the defendant union but also with the defendant union, and that it did not individually notify the workers of the fact that it was not known to the labor union. D.
The defendant union will return to work on July 10, 2012 without any condition.