(a) The significance of the quorum under Article 19 (2) of the Trade Union Act on the election of officers of a trade union and its mandatory provisions;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the candidate who has obtained the majority of total valid voting but failed to reach the majority of total voting in the second voting for the representative election of the trade union as the elected person on the ground of misapprehension

A. Article 19(1) of the Trade Union Act clearly states that the election of an officer is included in the "matters concerning the election of an officer", while Article 19(2) of the same Act stipulates the method of resolution by a general meeting provides that a member of a trade union, who is a member of a trade union, shall be involved in the decision-making of the organization and operation thereof in accordance with the principle of majority, thereby realizing so-called union democracy. Therefore, the above provision on the method of resolution by a general meeting is a mandatory provision. Even if the language of the above provision requires a special resolution of the general meeting, the resolution by a general meeting, which is not the matter requiring a special resolution of the general meeting, requires the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members and the consent of a majority of the present members.

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the candidate who has obtained the majority of total valid voting but failed to reach the majority of total voting in the second voting for the representative election of the trade union as the elected person on the ground of misapprehension

Article 19(1) of the Trade Union Act, Article 19(2) of the Trade Union Act

Claimant Law Firm, Attorneys Jin Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Chang Industrial Co., Ltd. and one other

Seoul High Court Order 95Ra76 Dated May 18, 1995

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. 원심결정 이유에 의하면, 원심은 피신청인 조합이 1995.2.28.자로 그 위원장 및 임원의 임기가 종료됨에 따라 조합규약에 의하여 후임 위원장을 선출하기 위하여 1994.11.29. 선거관리위원장 명의로 위원장 선거공고를 하자 조합원인 신청인, 피신청인 2, 신청외 1 등 3인이 위원장선거에 입후보한 사실, 피신청인 조합은 그 조합규약의 위임에 따라 선거관리의 공정을 기하기 위하여 별도의 선거규정을 두고 있는데, 위 선거규정 제20조에 의하면 당선자 확정에 관하여 "제적조합원 과반수 이상의 투표에 의하여 과반수 득표자를 당선자로 하되 과반수 이상의 득표자가 없을 시에는 차점자와 재투표하여 과반수 이상 득표자를 당선자로 한다"고 규정되어 있는 사실, 이에 따라 피신청인 조합은 1994.12.6. 소집된 총회에서 위원장 선거를 실시하였는데 개표 결과 총유권자 1,065명 중 997명이 투표에 참가하여 그 중 신청인이 327표, 피신청인 2가 435표, 신청외 1이 235표를 각 득표하여 아무도 과반수 득표를 하지 못하여 위 선거규정에 따라 최고득표자인 피신청인 2와 차점자인 신청인에 대하여 같은 해 12.8. 재투표를 실시한 결과 총유권자 1,065명 중 1,013명이 투표에 참가하여 무효투표수 18명을 제외한 유효투표수 995명 중 신청인이 493표, 피신청인 2가 502표를 각 득표하여 선거관리위원회에서는 피신청인 2가 유효투표수의 과반수 이상을 득표하였다 하여 그를 당선자로 확정한 사실을 인정한 다음, 노동조합법 제19조 제1항, 제2항에 의하면 노동조합의 임원의 선거에 관한 사항은 총회의 의결을 거쳐야 하고, 총회는 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성으로 의결하도록 규정되어 있는데, 위 조항은 노동조합의 임원의 선거에 관하여 규정한 노동조합의 규약이나 임원의 선거규정 및 위원장선거관리세부시행령 등의 제정에 관한 결의시 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 과반수의 찬성을 요하도록 한 것이고, 실제로 임원을 선출할 경우의 의사정족수 및 의결정족수를 규정한 것은 아니라 할 것이어서, 그 구체적인 의사정족수나 의결정족수에 관한 사항은 조합의 규약 등에 위임되어 있다고 판시하고, 나아가 피신청인 조합의 선거규정 제20조에 당선자 확정에 관하여 위와 같이 규정되어 있고, 위 선거규정 제25조에 의하여 제정된 위원장선거관리세부시행령 제11조 제2항에 개표 방법으로 "총유효투표의 과반수"로 규정되어 있는 사실을 인정한 후 위 선거규정에 따른 재투표는 소위 결선투표의 성격을 지니고 있으며, 당선자 확정에 관한 위 선거규정 제20조의 "과반수 득표자"를 기권표나 무효표를 모두 합한 투표수의 과반수로 해석할 경우 위 선거규정에 따라 재투표에 참가한 조합원 중 상당수가 의도적으로 기권하거나 무효표로 처리될 경우 임원 선출이 사실상 불가능하게 되는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 당선자 확정에 관한 위 선거규정 제20조의 "과반수 득표자"란 기권표나 무효표를 모두 합한 투표수의 과반수가 아니라 투표자 중 유효투표수의 과반수를 의미한다고 봄이 상당하다 할 것이므로, 유효투표수의 과반수 이상을 득표한 피신청인 2를 당선자로 함에 아무런 문제가 없고, 그 밖에 달리 위 선거가 무효라고 볼 만한 사정도 없으므로 신청인의 주장은 이유 없다고 판시하였다.

2. However, in light of the purport of the relevant laws and regulations, it is evident that the election of the officers in itself is included in the "matters concerning the election of the officers" under Article 19 (1) of the Trade Union Act, which provides for the essential matters to be resolved by the general meeting, which is the highest decision-making agency of the trade union, and on the other hand, Article 19 (2) of the same Act provides for the method of resolution of the general meeting provides that the members of the trade union may participate in the decision-making of the organization and operation of the union in accordance with the principle of majority, so the above provision on the method of resolution of the general meeting is a mandatory provision. Even according to the language and text of the above provision, since the general meeting provides that the matters subject to a special resolution of the general meeting shall be resolved with the attendance of a majority of the incumbent members and with the consent of a majority of the present members, a majority

The main sentence of Article 20 of the Election Regulations (No. 1, No. 2) stated by the court below shall be deemed to have provided the same contents in the end, and the proviso of Article 20 of the above Election Regulations, which provides that when the first ballot is held in braille and revoting without a winner, a majority of the votes shall be elected, has been repeatedly confirmed.

However, the court below held that Article 20 of the above election regulations on the confirmation of the elected person is not a majority of the total votes but a majority of the total votes of the voters when the majority of the members participating in the revoting are interpreted to have the character of so-called vote and the majority of the votes are interpreted to have the majority of the votes in all the votes held in the above election regulations, and it is reasonable to view that Article 11 of the above election regulations on the confirmation of the elected person is not a majority of the total votes or invalid votes, and it is not a majority of the total votes, but a majority of the valid votes among the voters (if the majority is interpreted to have the effect of deciding the elected person, the above provision is invalid because it is in violation of Article 19(2) of the Trade Union Act and Article 20 of the above election regulations, in the case of the revoting at the time of the original decision, and it is not proper to interpret the meaning of the above election regulations as prescribed in Article 20(2) of the Labor Union Act as the purport of the legislation of the above election regulations.

In the end, if the result of the election of the chairman, who is the representative of the respondent union, is the same as the decision of the court below, there is no majority of the total voters in the revoting, and therefore the respondent union has determined 2 as the elected person.

Therefore, the order of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 19 (1) and (2) of the Trade Union Act, and the interpretation of Article 20 of the above election regulations is erroneous, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the trial. Therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)