beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning Plaintiff D and H is modified as follows.
The defendant is against the plaintiff D 4,000.
Reasons
Plaintiff
The plaintiff Gap's assertion as to whether the election campaign right was infringed upon due to the opening of the plaintiff's claim part of the election campaign, was actively involved in the above election campaign with the intention to have the defendant elected a favorable candidate in the election process of the chairperson of the 8th defendant's labor union, which was implemented around December 2002, and the plaintiff A committed an illegal act that infringes on the right of free and fair election campaign as a candidate during the above election process.
Judgment
According to the statements in Gap evidence 2-2, 3, 4, and 5, while investigating whether the defendant's employee's employee's deceased in 2008 the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service will pay survivors' benefits in relation to the defendant's employee's death, it can be recognized that the deceased K's 8th executive officer of the defendant's trade union, which was implemented on December 9, 2002, came to suffer from excessive drinking, such as liver and livering diseases due to excessive drinking in the course of gathering the members of the defendant's trade union in order to make the defendant elected a favorable candidate during the election period for the defendant's 8th executive officer of the defendant's trade union, which was implemented on December 9, 202.
Plaintiff
A According to the results of the above investigation, A asserts that the defendant was proved to intervene in the election by ordering the deceased K to contact with the union members of the defendant union in 2002 and by ordering the hostile plaintiff A to be elected on the part of the defendant in order to prevent the defendant from being elected.
① However, the above findings were to clarify whether the Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Service’s death on March 1, 2008 was related to the work, and it was not intended for the Defendant to clarify whether the Defendant was involved in the election of the chairman of the Defendant Labor Union in 2002, and ② No. 2-2 and No. 3 of the evidence No. 2-3 are consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion.