Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm citizens, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Pacific Paz. (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Choi Su-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 201Gadan18895 decided December 21, 2011

June 21, 2012

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 21,598,733 won, 846,510 won to the plaintiff 2, 801,350 won to the plaintiff 3, 581,310 won to the plaintiff 4, 663,770 won to the plaintiff 5, 238,770 won to the plaintiff 6, and 20% interest per annum to the day of full payment from March 1, 2011 to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the new argument at the defendant's trial at the court of first instance at the bottom of No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance at the bottom of No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with

Even if the collective agreement of this case is effective until February 11, 201 as alleged by the plaintiffs, the defendant sent several public questions to the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission of this case to the effect that "the payment of wages to pre-employed workers from July 1, 2010 to the pre-employed workers is suspended, and plaintiff 1 and 2 who was the full-time officer at the time are returned to work, and various labor-management consultation, etc. should be made by the person designated as the full-time officer at the time of the time of the exemption from work, so that the pertinent person's use plan should be notified of the time of the time of work, so it is difficult to comply with the above public notice, and therefore, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission of this case returned plaintiff 2 from among full-time officers of this case to work site. Accordingly, since July 18, 2010, the defendant's assertion that Article 24 of the Labor Relations Commission of this case's collective agreement of this case cannot be viewed as being inconsistent with the above provision of Article 24 of the Labor and Labor Relations Act.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Lee Jong-young (Presiding Judge)