[1] Requirements for an employer’s lock-out to be recognized as a legitimate industrial action

[2] The case holding that a lock-out by an employer cannot be acknowledged as a legitimate act of dispute

[1] A lock-out by an employer must be recognized as a legitimate industrial action by an employer, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the negotiating attitude and process of the employer and workers, the purpose and method of industrial action by workers, and the degree of the degree of the degree of the strike received by the employer.

[2] The case holding that a lock-out by an employer cannot be recognized as a legitimate act of dispute, where the lock-out constitutes a preemptive or aggressive lock-out with the purpose of undermining the workers' industrial action, which goes beyond the defensive purpose of the trade union's organization

[1] Article 46 of the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 46 of the Labor Relations Adjustment Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da3431 delivered on May 26, 2000 (Gong2000Ha, 1493) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2243 delivered on September 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2629)

Peace-si Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Jeon-si Labor Union of the National Housing and Labor Union

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu19706 delivered on December 26, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

A lock-out by the employer must be recognized as a legitimate industrial action by the employer, in light of the specific circumstances, such as the negotiating attitude and process between the employer and workers, the purpose and method of industrial action by workers, and the degree of shock that the employer receives (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da3431, May 26, 2000; 2002Do243, Sept. 24, 2002).

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the records, the plaintiff company closed its door on August 15, 200 even before the plaintiff's assistant intervenor (hereinafter referred to as "the intervenor")'s operation of a lock-out, and found that three members, including the non-party, who were the head of the division of the intervenor, left the company in order to get out of the company as scheduled by three members, including the non-party, etc. on August 15, 200. On several occasions, the plaintiff company's assistant intervenor's operation of a lock-out against the plaintiff company's operation of a lock-out before the plaintiff company's operation of a lock-out without the plaintiff company's rejection of a lock-out, and the plaintiff company's non-compliance with the legal principles as to the plaintiff company's operation of a lock-out before the plaintiff company's operation of a lock-out, and the plaintiff company's non-compliance with the plaintiff company's order to suspend its operation and non-compliance with the plaintiff company's operation of the lock-out.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles as to the commencement time of industrial action and legitimacy

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)