[1] Requirements for workers' industrial action to be lawful

[2] In a case where a trade union goes into a industrial action for the purpose of substantially opposing the implementation of the restructuring itself, whether the legitimacy of the purpose of the industrial action can be recognized (negative with qualification)

[3] The standards for determining the legitimacy of the entire industrial action where there are many purposes pursuing the industrial action, and some of them are not justified

[4] The standard for determining whether a disciplinary action is an unlawful disposition beyond the scope of discretion

[1] Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Articles 4 and 37 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [4] Article 30 (1) of

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 99Do4837 delivered on October 25, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2624 delivered on January 20, 1998) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do5380 delivered on February 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1290) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu5204 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong192, 92, 927) 200Do2879 delivered on June 26, 2001 (Gong201, 1789 decided on June 29, 209) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2979 delivered on June 26, 200, 209Du3989 delivered on September 19, 197

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Plaintiff 6 and four others (Attorney Lee In-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Construction and Transportation (the Administrator of the Korean National Railroad Agency, Attorneys Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2003Nu2074 delivered on August 27, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Determination on the appeal by Plaintiffs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10

A. As to the first ground for appeal

For workers' industrial action to be lawful, first, the subject of collective bargaining should be the subject of the collective bargaining; second, the purpose of the industrial action should be to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and management to improve working conditions; third, the industrial action shall commence in accordance with the procedures prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the consent and decision of the union members, unless there are special circumstances; fourth, the means and method should be in harmony with the employer's property rights and should not constitute the exercise of violence; fourth, the industrial action should not be conducted in harmony with the employer's property rights; second, the industrial action should not be conducted for the purpose of industrial action (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 9Do4837, Oct. 25, 2001; 9Do4837, Oct. 201). 20, if part of the industrial action belongs to high-level managerial decision by the subject of management, which cannot be subject to collective bargaining; second, the industrial action should not be conducted for the legitimate purpose of the industrial action to be conducted within 20.

The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its decision, and found it reasonable to view that even if the labor conditions improvement of workers belonging to the Korea Railroad became one of the major causes of an industrial action, which is a general strike on February 25, 2002, the main purpose of the labor conditions improvement is to oppose the railroad privatization policy and to request the withdrawal of the policies, and if the labor union is excluded from the issue of withdrawal of the railroad film, which is one of the major requirements, the above industrial action would lose legitimacy in its purpose, and thus, all of the above plaintiffs' arguments based on the premise that the industrial action in the railroad union is legitimate, are without merit. In light of the records, the court below's above evidence selection, fact-finding and determination are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles due to violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to the disciplinary measure, it is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. However, if the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure is deemed to have abused the discretionary power that has been placed at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure as an exercise of discretionary power, the disciplinary measure is unlawful. If the disciplinary measure is deemed to be unlawful beyond the scope of discretionary power because it has considerably lost validity under the social norms, depending on the specific cases, the contents and nature of the facts causing the disciplinary measure, the purpose for which the disciplinary measure is to be achieved, and the criteria for a disciplinary measure, etc., are considered to have been objectively and clearly unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da60890, 60906, Aug. 23, 2002).

The court below held that the grounds for disciplinary action against the above plaintiffs were not only the heads of the branch offices of the Korean Railroad Labor Relations Committee under their control, but also the heads of the Central Railroad Labor Relations Committee under their control, and that the plaintiff 7 exercised violence against their superior officers during the dispute, the duty to obey Article 57, the duty to maintain dignity under Article 58, and the duty to maintain dignity under Article 63, and that the degree of the misconduct is not easy. The plaintiff 7 did not interfere with the duty to stop for three months from the Administrator of the Korean National Railroad; the plaintiff 9 had the record of disciplinary action against the plaintiff 10, and the plaintiff 10 had the record of the reduction of salary for two months from the Administrator of the Seoul Local Railroad; the plaintiff 7, the plaintiff 8, the plaintiff 9, and the plaintiff 10 were the heads of the Central Railroad Labor Relations Committee under their control; the plaintiff 6's disciplinary action against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 10 did not have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above disciplinary action against the plaintiff 10th National Railroad.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s appeal against Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

The court below held that the disciplinary action against the above plaintiffs was unlawful on the ground that the dismissal of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as stated in its reasoning, violated the duty of good faith under Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of unconstitutionality under Article 57, the duty of prohibiting departure from the workplace under Article 58, the duty of prohibiting removal from the workplace under Article 63, and the duty of maintaining dignity under Article 63 of the State Public Officials Act, but there was no disciplinary action before the above plaintiffs were subject to the disciplinary action, and the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had a career of being given official commendation by the Administrator of the Korean National Railroad or the head of the Seoul Regional Railroad Agency, the above plaintiffs did not have any direct violence against superior or any damage to the national flag during the strike of this case, the railroad union union resolved the strike problem through an agreement with the defendant, and the efforts were made for reasonable railroad service. In light of the records, the above evidence and judgment of the court below are not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right of discretion as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant, but the Administrator of the Korea Railroad Corporation's disciplinary power against public officials belonging to the Korea Railroad Corporation pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Korea Railroad Corporation Act enacted by Act No. 7052 on December 31, 2003 and enforced on January 1, 2005 is succeeded to the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the defendant is to be corrected as the Minister of Construction and Transportation by applying each provision of Articles 14 (6) and 13 (1) proviso of the Administrative Litigation Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)