(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.1.17.선고 2012가합16200 판결

2. The Defendant shall pay 20,00,000 won to the Plaintiff Jeong-○, the largest ○○, Park ○, Park ○, and Lee ○○, respectively, and 10,00,000 won to the rest of the Plaintiffs, and 20% per annum to the day of full payment from September 5, 2012 to the day of full payment.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a broadcasting business entity that runs broadcasting business and cultural service business, and the Plaintiffs are those who were employed as reporters, PD (referred to as broadcast program producers, hereinafter referred to as “PD”) and Abago, etc. as the Defendant’s employees.

B. The Seoul Branch, a trade union consisting of employees belonging to the Defendant’s headquarters, carried out the strike (hereinafter “the strike in this case”) from January 30, 2012 to July 17 of the same year.

C. The Defendant consists of a headquarters and a branch office across the country (18 branches including Busan ○○ Broadcasting, Daegu ○○ Broadcasting, etc.). The Defendant’s headquarters and each branch office corresponding to the Defendant’s headquarters and each branch office ( Busan ○○, Daegu ○, etc.) corresponding to the Defendant’s headquarters are located under the Nonparty’s Trade Union. Nonparty Trade Union entered into a collective agreement (common agreement) with the Defendant upon delegation by the Korea Press Union pursuant to paragraph (10) of the agreement attached to the collective agreement (common agreement) with the Defendant, and each branch under the Nonparty’s Trade Union entered into each collective agreement with the Defendant’s respective branch (Supplementary agreement) pursuant to Article 85(Attachment 3) of the collective agreement (see common agreement) with the Defendant pursuant to Article 85(Attachment 3) of the collective agreement with each of the non-party Trade Union’s headquarters. At the time of the instant strike, the Plaintiff was the chairman of the Nonparty Trade Union’s Seoul branch at the time of the instant strike and the rest of the Plaintiffs participated in the instant strike as an employee.

D. On March 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) held a personnel committee as follows; (b) held a disciplinary measure of dismissal or suspension from office as shown in attached Form 2; (c) held that the instant disciplinary measure against a specific Plaintiff; and (d) on February 29, 2012, the instant disciplinary measure against a specific Plaintiff was dismissed on March 19, 2012 by Nonparty 2, who applied for reexamination of the first disciplinary measure against Plaintiff 1’s dismissal or suspension from office on February 29, 2012 (referring to as “the same as the suspension from office on February 29, 2012”; (c) applied for reexamination on February 29, 2012, which became final and conclusive by Nonparty 2, who was dismissed on March 24, 2012.

6) On June 11, 2012, on May 30, 2012, Plaintiff Park ○, Choi ○, and king○ filed an application for reexamination of disciplinary action against each of the instant disciplinary action on May 30, 2012, but all of them were dismissed.

8) On June 18, 2012, all the subjects to be referred to the personnel committee on this day by June 19, 2012 are members of the non-party labor union's Seoul District Office (the plaintiff Kim ○ was the vice-chairperson of the organizing organization), and those who participated in the strike in the strike of this case and the company was designated in the course of the strike participation, and were absent from office without permission due to the failure to comply therewith. However, the number of absence days was 18 days by the plaintiff Song ○○, 134 days, respectively, 133 days, ○○○, 128 days, 73 days, 112 days, 12 days, and 129 days, and 129 days, and the remainder of the grounds for submission is excluded from the remaining grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

E. The defendant's rules of employment and collective agreement (common agreements and supplementary agreements) provisions, and operational regulations of the Fair Broadcasting Council are as shown in attached Form 3.

[In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 9, 10, 13, 14, Eul's evidence Nos. 17, 18, 21, and 22 (excluding the number No. 6 in the evidence No. 22, but including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 22-6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant disciplinary action is null and void, and seek against the Defendant the payment of wages not paid due to confirmation of invalidity and disciplinary action.

A. A member of the personnel committee having jurisdiction over the department to which a person subject to disciplinary action belongs pursuant to Article 70 of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment may not participate in the disciplinary deliberation of the relevant person subject to disciplinary action. A member of the personnel committee who has jurisdiction over the department to which the person subject to disciplinary action belongs, participated in each of the personnel committee on the Plaintiff 1, ○, ○○, ○○, Park○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, Kim○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○, and ○○, who is a member of the personnel committee in charge of the management support bureau. Accordingly, each disciplinary action against the above Plaintiffs

In addition, the dismissal of workers pursuant to Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act shall be notified in writing of the reason and time. The defendant's notice of the result of each personnel committee's dismissal for plaintiffs ○○, ○○○○, and Park ○○ does not contain any specific fact or misconduct that serves as the ground for dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of the above plaintiffs is null and void in violation of the duty of written notification under the Labor Standards

B. Absence of disciplinary reasons

The instant disciplinary action was limited to the plaintiffs' leading or participation in the strike of this case. Since Kim ○ assumed office as the president, the fairness of broadcasting was seriously damaged due to the violation of the producer's rights to broadcast PD and reporters and unfair personnel measures, etc. This led to the degradation of working conditions, such as the coverage environment of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs came to engage in the instant strike for the purpose of realizing fair broadcasting. Accordingly, the instant strike was conducted by Non-Party Trade Union and Seoul branch as the main agent of the collective bargaining with the defendant, and was conducted for the purpose of maintaining and improving the working conditions of the plaintiffs as workers of the press. Accordingly, the instant disciplinary action on the ground that he participated in the strike constitutes legitimate industrial action, and thus, it constitutes a legitimate means and method, and thus, the instant disciplinary action on the ground that

(c)the deviation and abuse of disciplinary discretion;

Even if the reasons for the disciplinary action are recognized, the plaintiffs were employed in good faith by the defendant for a multi-year period; 4. 11. Total ballot-counting broadcasting and the preparation of the London Olympic Relay Broadcasting, etc.; and the motive and motive of the strike of this case.

In light of the circumstances, the Defendant’s instant disciplinary action is also null and void due to the deviation and abuse of discretion.

3. Determination on the claim to nullify the invalidity of the instant disciplinary action

A. Determination of procedural defects

1) Whether there exists a violation of the exclusion rule (as to the Plaintiff’s ○○○, the highest○, ○○, ○○○, Gangwon○, ○○○, ○○○, Kim○○, ○○○, Lee○○, Kim○, ○○, Lee○, ○○, Professor○, Professor○, Professor○, ○○, and Hong, ○○, and hereinafter in this paragraph, the above Plaintiffs are named “Plaintiff Jeong○, etc.”).

The employment rules that exclude a person under disciplinary action from a disciplinary committee member include a person under disciplinary action, relative, or other person related to the disciplinary action, in order to guarantee fair and reasonable rights of disciplinary action. The disciplinary committee member with such grounds are excluded from the relevant performance of duties, and the exercise of the right of disciplinary action against the person under disciplinary action is null and void, regardless of whether the grounds for disciplinary action are acknowledged. However, it is reasonable to deem that the relative of the person under disciplinary action or the person related to the grounds for disciplinary action refers to, instead, the person under disciplinary action who is interested in the same interest with the person under disciplinary action or the victim of the grounds for the disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 200 OO00○○, Apr. 28, 1995, etc.).

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Article 70 of the Defendant’s Rules of Employment and Article 12 of the collective agreement (Supplementary Convention) provides that “The personnel committee belonging to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s Department of Disciplinary Action shall be excluded from participating in the deliberation of the relevant disciplinary case.” However, considering the overall purport of the arguments, the personnel committee established under the Defendant’s management headquarters shall be included in “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s Rules of Employment”’s 26, 27, 21-6, 22-2, and 8, which provides that “The personnel committee established under the Defendant’s management headquarters shall not carry out specific duties as a department for temporary suspension of work, including the so-called labor union activities or standby○○○○○○○○○○○○’s 6, supra. The Defendant, as the head of the planning and public relations committee, shall be excluded from the scope of the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff at the same time.

18. The personnel committee should have also excluded the head of the drama. Nevertheless, as long as ○○ and ○○○○○ was present at the time the personnel committee was held for each of the above plaintiffs, each disciplinary measure against ○○○ and ○○○○○ was invalid due to a serious defect in violation of the exclusion provision.

However, the defendant's rules of employment and collective agreement concerning exclusion shall apply only to the personnel committee members who are able to have an interest in the violation of the exclusion rules by taking into account the defendant's participation in the disciplinary action against the plaintiff 1, 200 et al. on the ground that the head of the management support division was issued as the personnel management support division on the ground of the designation of the full-time employee or the standby order, rather than the head of the management support office who did not actually perform duties instruction or work evaluation.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the Plaintiff Jeong-○ et al. is justified only for the part on the Plaintiff Lee Il-○ and Jeon-○○, and the part on the remaining Plaintiffs is without merit. 2) Whether there was a violation of a written notice obligation (as to Plaintiff ○○, Park Il-○, and Park Il-○, hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as “Plaintiff ○○, etc.”).

Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer shall notify the reason and time in writing to dismiss a worker. Thus, when the employer notifies the reason, etc. in writing, the employer must be able to specifically know what the reason for the dismissal is in the workplace of the worker. In particular, in the case of disciplinary dismissal, it is sufficient that a person subject to disciplinary action only puts down the provisions of the collective agreement or rules of employment in violation of the rules of employment (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da000, Oct. 27, 201).

However, the purpose of the written notification of the reason for such dismissal is to clarify the reason for dismissal so that disputes surrounding it can be settled properly and easily, and to enable workers to properly respond to dismissal. Thus, even if the entry of the reason for dismissal stated in the written notification of dismissal is somewhat detailed, if it is recognized that the relevant worker is clearly aware of the reason for dismissal and could respond to it in light of all the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a procedural defect in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act in such written notification of dismissal.

In light of the above legal principles, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 1, 12, 18-7 through 10, and 12, each of the above facts was examined. As to Plaintiff 2’s ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2’s request for a new trial. The Defendant’s submission of an explanation to the effect that it did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2’s request for a new trial.

In full view of the facts in front of the above facts of recognition and the purport of the whole argument, the plaintiff Maximum ○

○, etc. is reasonable to deem that the Defendant sufficiently recognized the grounds for disciplinary action deliberated by the personnel committee, and there is no procedural error in violation of Article 27 of the Labor Standards Act in the dismissal disposition against Plaintiff ○○, etc. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Plaintiff ○○, etc. is without merit. 3) Sub-decisions theory

Therefore, each disciplinary action against the plaintiff Lee ○ and Jeon ○○ is null and void due to procedural defect, and there is no defect in the procedure of the disciplinary action against the other plaintiffs. Thus, we examine whether there is a disciplinary action against the plaintiff Lee ○ and Jeon ○○ (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff Lee ○ and Jeon ○")

B. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant strike

The disciplinary action of this case is a disciplinary cause that the plaintiffs led or participated in the strike of this case and participated in individual assemblies, and prepared propaganda materials or comments related to the strike. Therefore, the legitimacy of the strike of this case should be first examined. Whether the strike of this case is justifiable should be determined on a preferential basis; whether some plaintiffs are liable to work in the intra-company website; whether certain plaintiffs defamation such as comments or comments posted on the intra-company website or personal SNS account; whether the acts of interference with the retirement of the plaintiff Kim ○-○'s return company, the president of the defendant, or other executives are illegal should be determined separately in relation to the existence of individual grounds for disciplinary action.

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 3, evidence 5, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 6, evidence 1 to 3, evidence 2, evidence 6, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 3, evidence 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 2, and evidence 2, evidence 1 to 6, evidence 2, evidence 2, and evidence 2, evidence 2.

(2) On April 29, 2008, 2008, the Defendant: (a) ○○○○○, the early opening of the president’s office; (b) through ○○○○○○○, the program dealing with the issue of luminous disease related to the resumption of the import of U.S. beef; (c) after broadcasting, the Defendant caused a large amount of social resistance, such as the opening of long-term candlelight demonstration in Seoul downtown. In relation to such an incident, the Defendant promoted the amendment of the statutes related to the press, such as the Broadcasting Act and the Newspapers Act, which allow large companies and newspaper companies to own their shares in broadcasting companies; (d) ○○○ Party, at the direction of the National Press Union, was three times a strike to oppose the amendment of the statutes from December 26, 2008 to July 24, 2009.

On February 8, 2010, Nonparty 1: (a) appointed Nonparty 1 as the head of the Defendant’s news report headquarters; and (b) appointed Nonparty 2 as the president of the Defendant on February 26, 2010; (c) claimed each of the above personnel as “shotsan personnel by political power”; and (d) prevented Nonparty 2 from working at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc. on March 11, 2010. However, Nonparty 1 promised to place Nonparty 2’s order to stop working at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a president of ○○○○○○○○○ on March 17, 2010.

2. The president was appointed from April 5, 2010 to May 13, 201, who was the vice president in charge of the news report and letter ○○○○. Nonparty Trade Union demanded the withdrawal of appointment of the vice president from around April 5, 2010 to around May 13 of the same year and conducted the strike.

Accordingly, on April 27, 201, the Defendant applied for a temporary injunction against obstruction of business to the Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap289, but withdrawn as the suspension of the business of Nonparty 1. Moreover, at the time of Nonparty 2’s leading to each of the above strike from 208 to May 2010, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a judgment of conviction on interference with business on December 27, 2010. (3) Defendant and Nonparty 2 were able to negotiate the collective agreement from the second half of 2010, on the grounds that part of Nonparty 1’s ○○○○○○○○○ Office’s ○○○○ Office’s ○○○○ Office’s ○○○○○ Office’s 20th 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 1st 1st 1st 201. Nonparty 1’s 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2010.

On February 22, 2011, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Southern District Court for provisional injunction against obstruction of business with the head of the Seoul Southern District Court on February 22, 2011, and on August 8, 2011, the Defendant withdrawn from the suspension of the demonstration by Nonparty Labor Union’s labor union. Meanwhile, the new collective agreement between the Defendant and Nonparty Labor Union was concluded on October 17, 201, and the new collective agreement was concluded under Article 21(3) of the existing collective agreement, which was “the head of the relevant office of the bureau and authority on the formation, report, and production,” and each company’s management should guarantee the authority of the head of the relevant bureau with respect to all business practices on the formation, report, and production.

B) Before the commencement of the instant strike, there has been an issue of unfair news reports, such as delaying reports or intentionally reducing the amount and content of reports compared to competition media companies, from August 2010 to August 1, 2010, which was after the appointment of the representative director of Kim○○, by the labor union and the democratic ○○○○ (OO), which is an organization under his control, related to the broadcast programming.

However, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 10 days later than other media companies. On June 29, 2010, 2010, 2000, 100 U.S. Supreme Court Decision 201Du20665 decided on May 23, 201, 201, 2000. 3. 200 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 200 was 6. 1st century’s first news reports, 2002. 3rdly, the Defendant had been able to see the effect of the Defendant’s new news reports.

The judgment of innocence was rendered to 2010No0○○○○○, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 2, 201 by the prosecutor’s dismissal of final appeal. However, on September 20, 201, immediately after the Supreme Court’s judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension from office or reduction of salary on the ground that the above PD damaged the reputation of the company, but the Seoul Southern Southern District Court declared on December 7, 2012 that the above disciplinary action was invalidated by ○○○○○○○ on December 201, 201, and the above case is still pending in the appellate trial.

On the other hand, the plaintiff ○○, working at the "○○○" production team, intended to broadcast the program that dealt with the problem of the so-called "the so-called four major lecture projects", which was promoted under the title of "the four major lecture and six-meter secret in depth" on August 17, 2010. The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs asserted the program as false on the side of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, and filed an application for the provisional injunction with the Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2010Kahap○○○○○○○○, but was decided to dismiss the application for the provisional injunction on the day of the broadcast. The management, including the president of Kim○○, requested the above preliminary injunction prior to the broadcast (written copies), and the defendant, despite the opposition of the director general of the responsible PD and the current culture bureau at the time, suspended the broadcast on August 24, 201, which was held in relation to the legitimacy of the above broadcast measures, was held on September 27, 2010>

However, on March 3, 2011, Nonparty 1, who was appointed as the Director of Culture and Arts Bureau for the production of an O program, announced the Personnel Measures Policy to replace PD which has worked for more than one year in principle on the day of birth on the ground that the program was too biased as seen earlier by the production of ○○○○○○○, etc., and that the viewing rate of the program was lowered, etc., as seen in the foregoing program, etc. The Non-Party 1, who had worked for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, along with the Director of Culture and Arts for the current personnel measures, has the character of the issuance of the program at the time and political orientation. The Non-Party 1, who had worked for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s production of the program, who had not been in charge of production and management of ○○○○○○, etc., was found to be excessive.

The head of ○○○ current culture bureau and Kim○○○○○○○○○’s team had been frequently involved with PD in manufacturing subjects with respect to the selection of subjects, and the head of ○○ Heavy Industries Labor and Labor, the Korea-China Labor-Management Affairs Council, the suspicions related to candidates for the Prosecutor General, and the suspicions related to the selection of the 7th world in Jeju-do, which were planned to be broadcasted on August 23, 201, did not allow the production of a program, the head of ○○ Heavy Industries Labor and Management, the ○○○ Prosecutor General, and the suspicions related to the selection of the 7th world in Jeju-do. On July 15, 2011, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s program for the Han Riverine Development Project, which was planned to be broadcasted, ordered the production-related PD to delete and broadcast the contents of the program. In addition, on July 15, 2011, Kim○○ did not act as if they followed the books of PD in manufacturing-related fields.

On the other hand, according to the personnel measures of the Director-General of Culture, ○○○○ and ○○○○ transferred its production team to ○○○○○○ in March 201. However, ○○○○ was trying to suspend inter-Korean economic cooperation and to broadcast programs on the losses of the companies related to economic cooperation, and on May 24, 201, on the ground that viewing rate is lower, ○○ was ordered to suspend production, and this was not the head office “○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○○”, the representative of this○○ and current culture Bureau, and immediately after the occurrence of damages to ○○○○○○○’s head office, it was difficult to recognize that ○○○○ was an assistant who did not return to ○○○○○’s head office on May 12, 201, and ○○○○ was the regional head office, a regional head office, citing 201, citing the above Nonparty’s request for a decision of suspension of work.

By November 201, 000, ○○○ served as the Director of the Culture Bureau for current events. During the year 2011, ○○○’s viewing rate of ○○○ was lower than 2010. Meanwhile, separately from the aforesaid conflicts within the “○○○” production department, ○○○○ opened a new program on June 24, 201 with respect to ○○○ ○○ Social, which had already been completed the production of ○○○○’s broadcast, on the sole basis that the pro and pro and pro and pro and pro and the residents’ voting for free meal in Seoul Special Metropolitan City may incur unfair trial costs, Nonparty 1’s appointment of Nonparty 2 as the Defendant’s representative on June 20, 201 (non-party 2) demanded to appoint Nonparty 3 as Nonparty 1’s representative on the radio network from June 27, 2011 to appoint Nonparty 2.

Around July 2011, 2011, the Defendant established a regulation on deliberation on fixed contribution restriction that limits the fixed contribution of contributors who publicly express a particular opinion on social issues, and around that time, ○○○○’s production “the concentration of time line ○○○○ was trying to depart from the country as a contributor, and Kim○○ was actively engaged in political activities at the time of his appointment. In addition, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s prior report procedure’s violation of the prior report procedure on July 15, 201, on the grounds that the “the concentration of time line ○○○○ was trying to depart from the country as a contributor,” and that the Kim○○ was actively engaged in political activities at the time of his appointment. Furthermore, the Defendant denied the contribution on July 15, 2011.

9. Around 17. Around the same day, the ○○○○’s “○○○”, due to a drop in listenivity, tried to replace the instant leap○○ with the main ○○○○○○○, but in that process, leap○○ resigneds and reversed the intent of contribution by the main ○○○○○. However, in the process of changing the proceeding or the contribution, there was no express demand for replacement of the PD in charge of the production of the pertinent program or any first proposal for replacement, and there was no difference in the audience ratio of each program that is in progress by Kim○ and ○○○○.

Accordingly, PD belonging to the radio headquarters conducted a demonstration in front of the bureau room, posted a warning board, etc. to criticize the president of Kim ○○ and the president of Lee ○○○○○ in the office, using nights, and attached a red paper, stating the phrase “for subordinates, there will be a final judgment on the directors’ books.” In addition, Nonparty Trade Union and Labor demanded Defendant Management to hold a meeting of the Fair Broadcasting Council on the replacement of Kim Unified on May 6, 201 and on May 2, 18, 2011, while Nonparty Labor and Labor urged Defendant Management to replace the progress as part of the so-called “the so-called “the cleaning of the strike.”

In the request for the holding, the Defendant rejected the direction of the suspension of the production of the “○○○” in the above-mentioned “one year of suspension of the production of the convenience” as an agenda item) on the ground of some employees’ booms. On the other hand, the chief of the Defendant’s radio headquarters replaced the “○○” from the end of November 201 to the Nonparty 2.

C) In accordance with Article 10 of the Operational Rules of the Fair Broadcasting Council, Nonparty 2 demanded the change of the position of executives related to the above election report, such as the former head of ○○○ and the head of ○○○○○○ news report, etc., to the Defendant by asserting that: (a) on November 3, 2011, the process of the instant strike occurred; (b) Nonparty 2, which was held by the Fair Broadcasting Council on the following day; (c) Nonparty 1 was not allowed to remove news gathering from the Defendant’s bulletin board on the following day; and (d) Nonparty 2 did not request the Defendant to remove news gathering equipment on the ground that there is a difference in opinions as to fairness; (d) Nonparty 2 did not request the Defendant to remove news gathering from the Defendant’s office and to change its position on the ground that it was impossible for the Defendant to do so; (e) on November 23, 2011, the Defendant did not report the following day to Nonparty 2’s new news gathering.

(3) On November 30, 201, Nonparty 1 demanded the Defendant to hold a regular meeting or extraordinary meeting on the grounds of unfair reports related to the Korea-U.S. FTA, etc., and upon notification from the Defendant’s side to the effect that he would hold a meeting under the presence of the vice president, Nonparty 2 demanded the attendance of the Kim○ president on December 13, 201, and the Defendant refused to comply therewith. In addition, on the grounds of 2011, Nonparty 2 did not hold a regular meeting of the Fair Broadcasting Consultative Council once a month, and Nonparty 1 requested to hold a regular meeting or extraordinary meeting on 14 occasions in total during the year 201, but the request on 15 days through 10 days after the request for an extraordinary meeting was made on 213th 10,201, and the request on 13th 10,210 and 13th 21,201.

on the ground that he did not respond on the basis of this paragraph.

(4) At the time of '○' means a decline in the viewing rate compared to the news program of a competitor.

However, on January 5, 2012, the press conference, composed of reporters belonging to the defendant, convened a general meeting and held a non-Confidence vote demanding the resignation of the head of the former ○○ news report and the head of the door-to-door news report bureau (86.4%) among the 125 members (1.4%) of this 108 members (1.4%) of this 125 members, arguing that the video press conference adopted a non-Confidence vote on January 7, 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Accordingly, the Defendant assigned ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○○, respectively, to the Personnel Committee on January 10, 2012, followed by a demand for withdrawal of disciplinary action, and 19.- On January 137, 201, 30 out of 115, 30 out of 137, and 45, respectively, were put into the Defendant’s refusal of production from January 25, 2012 to 15, and 30 out of the total number of 9,00-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,000-7,00-7,000-7,00-7,000-7,00-7,00-7,00-7,000.

. At present, ○○○ is facing an exceptional non-refluent crisis. ○○ is facing an unrefluent crisis. “The instant total wave business is expected to run with the aim of getting out of the president of ○○○ for the last two years,” and “The Cooperative demanded that ○○ president be engaged in defluence, but the president of ○○○○○○ was silently consistent. Ultimately, the president of ○○○○○ was revealed that there was no intention, ability, etc. to normalize ○○○○○○. As a result of the public opinion poll conducted with 100 professors of the press department, the Defendant’s response to concerns that the fairness and reliability of the large-scale broadcast report were reached 79%, and that such fairness and reliability was the largest trend of the executive members of friendly government.”

(6) On January 27, 2012, Nonparty Trade Union and Seoul Branch notified industrial action on January 27, 2012, and started the instant strike from January 30, 2012. The purpose of the strike was “No. 1 of the total strike guidelines for the collective strike for the normalization of public broadcasting ○○.”

D) After the completion of the instant strike (1) Nonparty 1 started the instant strike, Nonparty 1’s head office “○○○ ○○○ ○○ will return to the goods of the ○○○ citizens,” and “○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ mick, written the same language on the 1st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st,

In addition, the 10th floor of the defendant's headquarters with the president's office and the vice president's office, the 9th floor in the management support office, the 5th floor in the news center and the news center, etc. require group meetings to hold agricultural activities, hold out meetings, meetings, performances, etc. to the outside of the company, and distribute incentives to inform citizens of the legitimacy of the strike. Furthermore, the defendant's regular broadcast program such as ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, etc. applied the type and structure of ○○, ○○, and ○○○○, etc., and distributed through the Internet, representing the position of the labor union. The employees participating in the strike of this case gradually increased from the first 600 persons before and after the first 600 persons, and actively maintained the 760 persons inside and outside of the Seoul branch's office, including the plaintiff's ○○, ○○○, or the part related to the defendant's activities, including the plaintiff's 2, and the defendant's branch office of this case.

On February 14, 2012: from 30 to 15: 10, 200 members visited ○○○ and submitted a letter of objection and made a press check.

On February 14, 2012: From 00 to 200, 200 members of the defendant's head office held a meeting and a singing plaque at the defendant's head office.

On February 6, 2012: around 30, 2012: Around 30, Plaintiff Jeong-○, etc., opened a press conference before ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., and urged Plaintiff Kim○ to return the press conference. At the time, the society was in charge of Plaintiff Kim○○○.

On February 9, 2012: around 00, 200 members of the association held a meeting at the first floor of the headquarters, and Plaintiff Kim ○○ was in charge of the society. Plaintiff Kim ○○ made 1 Part of '○○○' and posted it to members of the association, and on the following day, on the main portal site and the video sharing site, etc.

In addition, in order to demand an interview to the president of Kim○○ who did not attend the school after the strike begins and to publicize the positions of the Kim○○○'s union, I found ○○'s president and distributed the leaflets, such as "(No. 8)."

On February 11, 2012: From 00 to 12:00, 200 members of the association held a meeting on the first floor of the headquarters, and the Plaintiff head of ○○○, Ga○○○, etc. read the printed items. From 00 to 00, the 12:0 to 12: 00 to 12: (a) was a propaganda activity for citizens at the Seoul Do Office, such as the Gangnam Station, and was a member of the association.

On February 13, 2012, when the defendant removed the banner and the saves posted on the 1st floor of the headquarters, 200 members of the headquarters from 00 to 11:0, and 200 members of the headquarters were resisted to do a demonstration by gathering the robs, and used the saves in the direction of the plaintiff Jong-○, the chairperson of the headquarters, and attached the saves to the saves.

After that, at around 14: 00, members visited the 10th and 9th (the office of the president and the vice president) of the headquarters in a group of 14:0, confirmed the absence of the president, and confirmed the absence of the president, and conducted a demonstration in the way of distributing the former to the citizens.

On February 14, 2012: From 00 to 12:20, 200 members collected flags on the first floor, and flabed a flab, and flabed a flab, cut off salt from 10 to 3rd floor, and held a road play event. In an assembly held on the first floor of 1 p.m. on the same day, the ○○○○○ was in charge of society, and the Plaintiff ○○, and flabed by the Plaintiff ○○ and flab○ participated.

On February 15, 2012: from 00 to 16:00, 180 members of the community videos were taken by “○○○pum” by gathering 180 members of the community in the Defendant’s Japanese-style house.

On February 20, 2012: From October to 17: 35, 2012: (a) more than 150 members of the Defendant’s headquarters hold an assembly at the Defendant’s headquarters; (b) introduced the results of “OO of the Plaintiff ○○○ on February 17, 2012,” and (c) many members of the Plaintiff ○○○○○’s headquarters 10 to rogate, with their headquarters 10th and up to 17th; (d) the Plaintiff ○○ was playing a street play in the way of externally promoting relief, such as “Seoul○○○ and ○○○○○○’s physical damage.” At that time, the Plaintiff ○○ was scheduled to jointly strike with the Defendant’s headquarters. In so doing, the Plaintiff ○○ erred by destroying the organizational culture more than the damage to the fair broadcast.

On February 21, 2012: From 30 to 17:00 on February 21, 2012, from 40 to 15:16 on February 22 of the same month, the members of the association, who were led by Plaintiff Jung-○, ○○, and ○○○, around 10:10 on February 21, 201, conducted an assembly.

On February 23, 2012, at the conference on the am on February 23, 2012, the "OTV's ○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

On February 24, 2012: From around 40 up to about 40 minutes to about 10 minutes, 150 members of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the 10th floor of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the head office for about 10:0 to about 2 hours. The cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the Republic of Korea was spreading through the Internet through the "Act on the Prohibition of Appointment of the Prosecutor General of the cooperative of the ○○○○." On February 28, 2012, the cooperative of the Republic of Korea asked the defendant to use the corporate card of the president of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative of the cooperative.

On February 29, 2012: from 30 to 11:00 members, 200 members of the personnel committee were urged to hold, and the demonstration was conducted from the 10th floor corridor.

On March 2, 2012, the press conference led the 10th floor of the 10th floor, the press room, and the fifth floor corridor, etc. On March 2, 2012, the Kenya continued every day until March 9, 2012.

On March 5, 2012, 166 members of the press decided to resign collectively, and around 19:30 on the same day, 19:30 broadcasting companies (○○, ○, ○○, and ○○) organized by the National Press Union by the leader of the union, including the Plaintiff Jeong-○, etc., participated in the 'joint strike appearance', and presented the purpose of the joint strike as 'the restoration of the fair broadcast, the withdrawal of the president from office, and the strike for reinstatement of the dismissed.'

On March 6, 2012: (a) from around 10: 10 to around 20, approximately 150 members of the National Press Union held a meeting at the street branch; and (b) Plaintiff Kim ○○ announced the decision to participate in the strike of all members of the Dama PD. Thereafter, from around 11:10 to around 10, members of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office and received a written accusation against the president of Kim ○. Moreover, at the initiative of the National Press Union, the pros and cons voting for determining whether to carry out the same kind of strike of other local branches of the non-party union was carried out until March 8, 2012.

On March 7, 2012: From around 20 to 17:30, 300 members of the association were convened before ○○○. From around 00 to about 20 minutes of the assembly, many members of the association took up 17:0 to around 20 minutes of the assembly, and prevented ear company (in the middle of the assembly, earet that demanded the president’s withdrawal from the president on the part of Kim○○ president, and took out relief, etc., and prevented ear company (in the middle of the assembly), the above act was part of the Plaintiff’s ○○, Gangwon-○, Lee○, Lee○, Lee○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Lee○, and Lee○, etc.

On March 9, 2012, other branches except the Busan Branch of Non-Party Trade Union on March 12, 2012.

06: A resolution to commence a strike on March 15, 2012 was passed on 00 copies, and around 10 on March 12, 2012, '○ nationwide general strike appearance' was held.

On March 16, 2012, the defendant's management, such as the president of Kim○-○, by disclosing "○○○○○" (No. 5) on March 16, 2012, argued that the defendant's management, such as the president of Kim○, attempted to disarm "○○".

In March 19, 2012, at the conference on March 19, 2012, the plaintiff Jeong-○'s main results of the joint meeting of four-day press companies (labor union union), and the general election is to know about the meaning of the strike to voters.

Until the president retires, there was no conversation with the company, and the plaintiff Kim ○, from the 10th to the 12th century, operated a marketing demonstration with 24 employees of the 10th floor level or higher from 00 to 12:15 on the same day. In addition, from 11:0 to 12:15 on the same day, the 10th class or higher of the 24th class employees engaged in a marketing demonstration, and thereafter on March 2012.

21. From 21. From 1st century, 20-30 persons were returned each day from 1st century, and the demonstration was conducted in the same manner as in the same day. At around 15th day, 180 members were present in front of the election office of the senior leader of the Non-Party Mobile Team, a chief public relations officer, at around 30.

On March 28, 2012, 2012, the dismissal proposal of the president of Kim○○, presented by some of the ○○ directors, was rejected, and 16:40 to 18:0, 150 members of the association opened an assembly before ○○.

On April 11, 2012: Along with 00: 00, Agreg and Agregman Association made a reply to the selection of the Defendant’s poppy on March 28, 2012. On this day, the Plaintiff’s regular ○○ was unable to keep the term of office of the directors of the visiting party (OO) pursuant to the rejection of the dismissal of Kim○○○. After the total election, the Plaintiff’s regular cliged the amendment of the Act on Visit and the appointment structure of the president. The Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s regular clig was removed.”

On April 18, 2012, according to the Defendant’s employment of a career reporter, approximately 35 members of the press room were engaged in a booming demonstration around the fifth floor corridor and the press room. On April 24, 2012, the press room conducted the same method of demonstration every day until April 24, 2012. On April 30, 2012, the press team opened a briefing session against the employment of a career reporter, and even on May 2, 2012, the head office was engaged in a booming demonstration in the fifth floor of the press room.

From April 23, 2012 to May 8, 2012, the local ○○○ Nowon-gu (Non-party’s sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

From May 7, 2012 to 13:00 each day from 11:30 to 13:00 PD belonging to the Defendant’s PD, one person’s demonstration was conducted on a alternate basis. From June 4, 2012, reporters were also employed from June 8, 2012. Around May 8, 2012: (a) one person’s demonstration was conducted before the National Assembly, at the initiative of the Seoul Branch of the Non-Party Association.

On May 16, 2012, the Defendant obstructed 5th and 10th from the reporting station of the headquarters in preparation for the occupation of the reporters’ conference. At around 22:00 on the same day, approximately 50 members of the reporters’ association stopped from leaving the vehicle of the head office ○○○○○○○○○ who retired. The Defendant asserted, through the “○○○○ day following the day, that ○○○ was unable to provide the news relay due to the act of cutting off the vehicle above the reporters’ meeting, and, in fact, Nonparty’s criticism was made. However, at the time, at the time, at the time, many members of the reporters’ association, including Plaintiff Park○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○, etc., prevented the progress of the vehicle on which ○○○○○ on board, and received some physical conflicts between the Defendant’s ○○○○○○○ and Nonparty 2, other than the Defendant’s ○○○○○’s employment policy.

On June 7, 2012: around 55: Around 55, the request for a warrant of detention against five executive bodies of the union, including Plaintiff Jeong-○, was dismissed.

(3) On February 14, 2012, the Defendant applied for provisional disposition of obstruction of business against the members of the non-party union and its guidance division (the plaintiff regular ○○○, Gangwon-do, Kim○, Kim○, ○○, ○○○○, Ka○○○, Ma○○○, Ma○○, Lee ○○, Kim○, Ga○○, Ga○○, Ga○○○, Ga○○, Gab○, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"). On June 13, 2012, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court partially accepted the defendant's application on June 13, 2012, and set up the non-party union or the respondent with a third party to leave part of the defendant's workplace or building and interfere with the defendant's assembly meetings, ② The defendant's act of attaching the defendant's entrance or temporary disposition to the non-party 2's workplace or building, ③ the defendant's 1's act of interfering with the defendant's entrance or temporary disposition.

Accordingly, from June 15, 2012, Nonparty Trade Union and Seoul Branch suspended pedagoging within the staff of the head office’s office’s office’s house, and converted the method of strike by holding a meeting before the president’s emotional or South Korea’s office and conducting a joint signature campaign. The first person’s demonstration continued until July 17, 2012, and the pedagoging continued from June 19, 2012 to July 12, 2012.

(4) During the strike period, some artistic programs, such as ○○, ○○○○, OO, 15, 18: 00, 00, 24: and 00, 18:0, 00, and 00) news for each hour, such as reporting programs, further '○○’, and 'OO’ were associated or reduced, and one-minute of '○○○○○', after the Rama PD’s strike (as of March 7, 2012, - 8) were replaced by some persons who participated in the strike.

On March 28, 2012, the Defendant selected five poppy poppy under the jurisdiction of the news station. On April 17, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced the recruitment of contract workers for broadcast production personnel, such as career reporters and news progress PD. On May 12, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced the recruitment of a career reporter as a full-time employee after a year ○○ (test). On June 13, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced the recruitment of a career worker as a full-time employee on a one-year basis, and on a one-year basis, publicly announced the recruitment of a career worker such as re- planning, public relations, reporters, etc. The replacement worker employed by the Defendant during the strike period became 93 persons in total.

(5) On July 17, 2012, Nonparty Trade Union and Seoul Branch declared the temporary suspension of the instant strike, and ordered its members to return to work 09:00 copies of the following day.

E) The circumstances after the completion of the instant strike do not include the grounds for the instant disciplinary action, but also the misconduct, etc. committed after the occurrence of the grounds for disciplinary action may be considered as materials for disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu00, Sept. 3, 1999, etc.). Thus, the circumstances after the completion of the instant strike should be considered within the necessary scope.

Even after the completion of the instant strike, bruting centered on the partnership enforcement division and the persons subject to suspension from office continued mountainly, and some of the members of the Defendant headquarters were the first floor of the Defendant headquarters, etc.

11. Until the beginning, an attempt was continued to install a search and press conference, a tobacco demonstration, and a tent. In addition, on July 18, 2012, the non-party union ordered the non-party union to maintain only the relationship of business with the worker employed during the strike period by referring to the replacement worker employed during the strike period through 'Guidelines for Return of Members' to the Union.

On the other hand, the defendant evaluated the achievements in the first half of the year 2012 and gave R grade to all the members who participated in the strike. Based on this, the defendant issued a three-month education order to many the members of the union, including the plaintiff Y○○, Lee ○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Hong○, Ma○○, and Hong○, and issued a transfer order to the future strategic office, Seoul stamp, and Madra Development Group after the end of the education period (part of the members were immediately transferred to the above departments as of the end of the strike).

However, on March 20, 2013, the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a provisional disposition ordering the suspension of the validity of each of the above transfer positions under the name of 2012Kahap ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the need of the above transfer positions.

2) Determination

In order for a worker's industrial action to be recognized as legitimate, the subject of collective bargaining should be the subject of collective bargaining, and the second purpose should be to create autonomous negotiations between labor and management to improve working conditions, and third, the employer should commence collective bargaining with respect to a specific demand for the improvement of working conditions of workers, and barring special circumstances, it should undergo the procedures prescribed by the law, such as the decision of the union members' consent, and fourth, the means and method should be harmonized with the employer's property rights, and all the conditions that the means and method should not be included in the exercise of violence should be met (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du 2004, Apr. 29, 2005, etc.).

However, in the case of this case, there is no particular dispute between the parties on the fact that the non-party union or Seoul Branch is a person entitled to become the subject of collective bargaining, and thereafter, the purpose of the strike of this case is legitimate. (A) Whether the purpose of the strike of this case is legitimate (i) whether the main purpose of the strike of this case is (i) whether the strike of this case is legitimate.

If there are several purposes pursuing an industrial action, and some of them are not legitimate, the legitimacy of the industrial action should be determined by the legitimacy of the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action, and if it is deemed that the industrial action would not have been conducted if the industrial action was excluded from the unfair requirement, the entire industrial action should not be deemed justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du200, Jun. 23, 2009, etc.). Therefore, even if the industrial action appears to be aimed at the demand of the representative director who belongs to the management right on the external inspection, if it is asserted as a means necessary for maintaining and improving working conditions, rather than directly aiming at replacing the representative director, it cannot be deemed as the main or genuine purpose of the industrial action, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the industrial action is unlawful as it lacks legitimacy of the objective. However, in this case, since the purpose of the industrial action, such as the inducement of the labor union or the plaintiff ○○, etc., of the non-party 2, including the non-party 2, 2009.

In full view of the facts of recognition and the overall purport of the oral argument, Nonparty 1’s labor union agreed to ensure the fairness of broadcast within the Defendant in light of various circumstances, including the process of appointment of ○○○○○ president or immediately after his inauguration’s appointment, and opposed to the appointment of ○○○ president. However, since the second half of 2010, negotiations on amendment of collective agreements with the Defendant have been underway since the second half of 2011, which is after the reappointment of ○○○ president, entered into a new collective agreement with the Defendant on October 17, 201. On the other hand, the Defendant did not hold a regular meeting of the Fair Broadcasting Commission for the purpose of ○○○○○○○○’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor and labor union’s labor union’s labor union’s labor.

(2) Determination as to whether a demand to guarantee fairness in broadcasting constitutes a legitimate purpose of industrial action

(A) The purpose of industrial action and the scope of collective bargaining

Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “○○○○”) defines labor disputes as “a state of dispute arising out of disagreements between a trade union and an employer on the determination of terms and conditions of employment, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, etc.” As stated above, Article 2 subparag. 6 of the same Act defines industrial actions as “an act conducted for the purpose of accomplishing the claim by the parties to labor relations, such as strike, etc.” Furthermore, in order to recognize industrial actions as legitimate, the purpose should be to create autonomous negotiations between the labor and management for the purpose of improving working conditions. It means that the purpose of this case’s collective bargaining is to ensure that the requirements to be achieved by industrial disputes may not be limited to those of the parties to labor-management relations under the Act on the Establishment of Terms and Conditions of Employment and Labor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da4042, Sept. 30, 194; 2000Do492, Apr. 29, 199).

The Broadcasting Act and the Broadcasting Deliberation Act as a legal regulation to guarantee the fairness and independence of broadcasting, and the ○○ Act have the same provisions as attached Table 4, and related collective agreements and the regulations on the operation of the Fair Broadcasting Council are as shown in attached Table 3.

Examining the key contents, the Broadcasting Act guarantees the freedom and independence of broadcast programming, prohibits all regulations or interference with broadcast programming that are not governed by the Act, and imposes an obligation to establish and publicly announce regulations on broadcast programming in order to guarantee the autonomy in the production of broadcast programming on a broadcasting business operator engaged in general programming (Article 4 subparag. 1, 2, and 4). Moreover, the Broadcasting Act provides that a report by broadcast shall be fair and objective and shall protect and expand the people’s right to know and expression (Article 6 subparag. 1 and 4). The Broadcasting Act provides that the Korea Communications Commission shall deliberate whether the content of broadcasting maintains the impartiality and public nature, and shall establish and publicly announce regulations on the deliberation (Article 33). Accordingly, the Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation enacted by the Korea Communications Commission provides that the Korea Communications Commission shall clearly state fairness and objectivity as the basis for deliberation, and that a person in charge of broadcasting production or disciplinary action may not be mistaken or conflicting with any other person’s public interest in the broadcast programming or any other relevant broadcast programming-related institution, and that the Broadcasting Act requires the Korea Communications Commission to deliberate on broadcast programming-related entities.

On the other hand, ○○ Act establishes ○○ to realize the public responsibility of the broadcasting business operator who is the largest shareholder, to contribute to the promotion of democratic, fair and sound broadcasting culture, and the improvement of public welfare (Article 1). The Broadcasting Act permits ownership of more than 40/10 of equity shares of the terrestrial broadcasting business operator in consideration of ○○’s public purpose (Article 8(2)2).

In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s collective agreement also enacted the principles of broadcast that have the same effect as the rule in order to guarantee the fairness and independence of broadcasting, and established and operated the Fair Broadcasting Council. Moreover, the Defendant’s collective agreement also provides various institutional devices to prevent the infringement of the fairness of broadcasting inside the Defendant, such as the submission of policies by the Director General of the Assignment Bureau or the investigation of the employees’ opinions on the head of the headquarters.

(C) As seen earlier, the Broadcasting Act, ○○ Act, and the Regulations on Broadcast Deliberation impose an obligation on a broadcasting business entity to maintain objectivity and fairness in order to maintain and develop the fundamental democratic order, guarantee the freedom of expression and the right to know essential for maintaining and developing the fundamental democratic order, and to form a proper public opinion, and specifically impose an obligation on a broadcasting business entity to establish and publicly announce broadcast programming rules. In light of these legal regulations, the obligation of fair broadcast is the principle of establishing the basis of labor relations at the same time as the obligation required for both labor and management by the Defendant under the relevant laws, such as the Broadcasting Act, and as such, the establishment of an institutional device to realize the fairness of broadcasting and the implementation thereof are not the matters entrusted to the autonomy of labor relations, but the employer is obligated to conduct collective bargaining pursuant to Article 30 of the Trade Union Act (the so-called mandatory bargaining items).

However, the term “broadcasting” in this context means not only a mere fact that excludes any value judgment, but also an objective and neutral broadcast based on facts by excluding voluntary programming based on subjective value judgment and collecting diverse values. The value itself is a subjective element of the broadcast, and thus the fairness of broadcast is inevitably different depending on the viewpoint. Ultimately, the fairness of broadcast is not a result of broadcast, but rather a result of the broadcast, and is determined based on whether it is made democratic decision-making with the free opinion and participation of the members in the process of producing and organizing the broadcast. Accordingly, if the existing rules of employment or collective agreement stipulate provisions to guarantee the above procedural fairness of broadcast, if the employer intends to control the production, editing and transmitting of broadcast by disregarding such procedures and abusing personnel rights or management rights, it constitutes an unlawful act that interferes with working conditions in violation of collective agreements, and constitutes an unlawful act that violates the duty of fair broadcast provided for in relevant provisions, such as Broadcasting Act.

Furthermore, if an employer fails to comply with the existing collective agreement, the act of demanding compliance shall be deemed to be an act of industrial action aimed at ensuring the effective implementation of the collective agreement, not merely claiming matters concerning the interpretation and application of the existing collective agreement, but also seeking measures to ensure the effective implementation of the collective agreement. If it is deemed that the legitimacy of the purpose of industrial action that requires the observance of the existing collective agreement is not a "decision on the working conditions" but a so-called right dispute that is not a "decision on the working conditions", the act of industrial action aimed at restoring the working conditions hindering the failure to comply with the existing collective agreement would be prohibited under the Trade Union Act. This is not only an interpretation that unreasonably limits Article 33(1) of the Constitution recognizing the right to collective action to improve working conditions, which is also an interpretation that unreasonably limits the right to collective action, but also a trade union is not able to take the so-called peace duty to demand the amendment or repeal of the collective agreement during the effective period of the collective agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 192Nu733, Sept. 1, 1992).

In light of such legal principles, the Defendant’s management, including Kim○, prior to the instant strike, including Kim○, tried to suppress diverse opinions of the members of the Defendant, while producing and organizing only broadcasts that are compatible with the management value and interest, by violating the provisions of the collective agreement to ensure fairness in broadcasting and by abusing personnel rights, even before the instant strike, in light of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as prior to the instant broadcast and the purport of the entire pleadings. Such acts have aggravated working conditions in violation of the collective agreement, as well as the Broadcasting Act, etc.

It constitutes a violation of the duty of fair broadcasting recognized by the relevant laws and regulations, and therefore the workers can go to the industrial action to seek the correction thereof.

① Whether to report a specific news, the selection of a particular subject of broadcast program, and the replacement of contributors, etc. are determined based on the professional judgment of a broadcast producer. It is difficult to readily conclude that the impartiality of a broadcast is infringed solely on the result of such determination. However, the Defendant’s employee or user may raise an issue regarding such determination from the perspective of a broadcast producer’s employee. In such a case, only when the issue raised is reasonably determined in accordance with the procedures agreed by the parties concerned, the fairness of a broadcast may be evaluated as being observed.

② As seen earlier, the Defendant’s collective agreement has a procedural system to resolve disputes related to the fairness of broadcasting through consultation between labor and management, such as the regulations on the operation of the Fair Broadcasting Council, and to realize a fair broadcast. Furthermore, the Defendant’s operation regulations of the Fair Broadcasting Council include the contents that prevent infringement of the nature of the right of personnel management, such as recognizing the president’s discretion to refuse to comply with the request for change of assignment, by constituting the same number of labor and management, and requiring the change of assignment only with the consent of a majority.

③ However, the Defendant attempted to revise matters concerning the right to demand the change of assignment among the regulations of the Fair Broadcasting Council from the collective bargaining since the second half of 2010. Since such an attempt was omitted, the Defendant did not hold regular broadcast council under the above provisions once a year since 2011, and did not comply with the demand to hold regular meetings of the non-party union members, thus de facto failure to observe the demand to observe the Fair Broadcasting Council. In particular, even though Kim ○, the Defendant’s president of the last process broadcast council held on November 3, 201, promised to prevent the recurrence of unfair news reports, the Defendant failed to make every effort for the labor-management agreement from the beginning of the same time even though similar problems related to the opposite report of the Korea-U.S. FTA, and thereafter, on January 5, 2012, the said council and video reporters’ conference opened the disciplinary procedure by assigning the chairman, etc. on the ground of non-Confidence in voting.

④ In addition, the Defendant replaced the production progress of certain programs, such as “○○,” on the ground that the work performance rating, etc., without any objective basis, on the ground that the Defendant’s work performance rating was biased, and even though the Supreme Court rendered a verdict of innocence as to the defamation of “○○○○” program, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension from office, etc., but the court became final and conclusive. As a result of the selection of the subject of broadcasting, the Defendant issued a transfer order to a department irrelevant to the previous work, which caused conflicts between the production manager and the PEs by abusing the right of personnel management by abusing the right of personnel management and returning them to the original position.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the strike of this case is justified in its purpose.

B) Whether the timing and procedure of the instant strike are legitimate

An industrial action shall commence when the employer has refused to conduct collective bargaining or responded to the intent of refusal in collective bargaining with respect to a specific demand for improving working conditions, and the procedure shall be justifiable in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, even if the industrial action violates the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Trade Union Act, etc., the legitimacy of the industrial action as an industrial action shall not be deemed to be lost, but it shall be determined whether the industrial action is justifiable by examining the specific circumstances, such as whether the act of violation brings about the same unreasonable result as that which leads to the stability of people's lives and the occurrence of unexpected confusion or damages to the employer's business operation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu00, May 14, 1991)

However, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the non-party labor union Seoul Branch continuously demanded the meeting of the Fair Broadcasting Council as set forth in the collective agreement in 201, but the defendant actually rejected it. The non-party labor union has demanded the guarantee of fair broadcast from the beginning of the appointment of Kim ○○ president and has harmed its activities, and the defendant unilaterally notified the termination of the existing collective agreement on January 14, 201, and even after the conclusion of a new collective agreement on October 17, 2011, it did not seem that the non-party labor union branch did not actively express its intent to guarantee fair broadcast as set forth in the agreement after the conclusion of the new collective agreement, and that it could not be seen that the non-party labor union branch requested the defendant to submit the collective bargaining as agenda items to the defendant around January 201, which was before the commencement of the instant strike, to the non-party labor union member or the labor union member of this case at the time of the commencement of the labor dispute action could not be seen as legitimate in light of these circumstances.

C) Whether the means and methods of the instant strike are reasonable

The method of industrial action shall be such as to fully or partially suspend the provision of labor to an employer, and to compromise the employer with the principle of fairness in light of the principle of good faith in labor-management relations. It shall not be in harmony with the employer's ownership and other property rights, nor shall it involve violence or destruction (Supreme Court Decision 5.5. 192).

8. Supreme Court Decision 91Do○○○○○○, Supreme Court Decision 93Da○○○○, March 25, 1994, etc.). However, even in this case, the legitimacy of the industrial action itself and the legitimacy of each act constituting or ancillary to the industrial action should be distinguished. Thus, even if certain minority workers committed an act of violence, etc., even if they committed an act of violence, it does not constitute an unlawful act as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du○○○, supra).

However, according to the above facts, during the strike period of this case, the non-party Trade Union and Seoul Branch held a meeting on the first floor of the defendant's headquarters, setting up banners, and closed the first floor of the defendant's headquarters. In addition, some union members were fry in the 5th floor or the tenth floor with the president's office in the news station, but such assembly or fry was replaced by the defendant's partial broadcast, but the transmission of the broadcast program did not interfere with the defendant's part of the broadcast, but it did not occur only once during the strike period. Further, after the court's decision was issued a provisional disposition, the non-party Trade Union and Seoul Branch held an assembly outside the defendant's headquarters in compliance with its purport, and there was no act of violence or destruction in the process of the strike of this case, and it seems that there was no other act of damaging the plaintiff's headquarters's headquarters's wall or column, and there was no other way to see that the plaintiff's act of causing harm to the plaintiff's union members or the chief of the headquarters.

Therefore, the strike of this case constitutes a legitimate act for a trade union's work under Article 81 subparagraph 1 of the Trade Union Act, and the part participating in the strike of this case does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action. hereinafter, on the premise of this, we examine whether there is a ground for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs.

C. Determination as to whether each of the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs exists

1) Relevant legal principles

Whether a worker's act of misconduct is a cause of disciplinary action or not should be decided by the disciplinary committee, etc. through specific data, and it is not always limited to the cause of disciplinary action (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du200, May 28, 2002, etc.). Thus, the cause of disciplinary action against the plaintiffs should be determined by whether the disciplinary committee discussed the disciplinary action or determination for any reason in detail.

In accordance with this standard, we examine the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action discussed for each individual plaintiffs in the personnel committee.

2) Determination on the resignation of assignment (as to Plaintiff Kim○, ○○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, and Ma○○, among the personnel committee on March 5, 2012, on April 2, 2012, on Plaintiff ○○, Red○, Ma○, and Ma○○, among the personnel committee on April 2, 2012, on Plaintiff ○○, ○○, Ma○, and Ma○, among the personnel committee on April 9, 2012, on Plaintiff ○○, ○○, ○, Ma○, and Hong○, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Ma”)

In light of the above facts, on March 5, 2012, the personnel committee for the plaintiff Kim ○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○, as seen in the preceding facts, discussed on April 2, 2012 as to the person who did not have been assigned to the pertinent position on the ground that the above plaintiffs were not assigned to the pertinent position on the ground that the above plaintiffs’ refusal to resign from the position on April 9, 2012 was not limited to the grounds for disciplinary action (the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff 15, 16, 18 through 21, 23 through 26, 34, 37, 36, 38, 200, 200, 200, 300, 2000, 200, 300,000,000,000,000).

As seen earlier, even though the grounds for dismissal on May 30, 2012 by Plaintiff Gamb○ does not include non-Confidence voting and refusal of production among the grounds for dismissal on May 30, 2012, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 22-7 of the evidence No. 22, Plaintiff Gamb○, who was subject to the suspension from office for six months due to non-Confidence voting (which was initially dismissed by the personnel committee for review conducted on February 29, 2012) (which was reduced by the personnel committee for review conducted on April 9, 2012), may recognize the facts leading to dismissal in consideration of the disciplinary action taken by the Defendant. Accordingly, in order to determine the propriety of the previous disciplinary action, it is reasonable to view Plaintiff Gamb○ as to whether the non-Confidence voting and refusal of production constituted grounds for disciplinary action.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the court below's holding that the non-Confidence voting and the video reporters' meeting consisting of reporters belonging to the defendant prior to the commencement of the instant strike was commenced after the commencement of non-Confidence voting for the news director-general and the news director-general, and that there was a trouble in the normal broadcast, such as that a considerable number of news programs of the defendant were associated or reduced, etc., as seen above, and the overall purport of the arguments was taken into account in the statement of No. 20-4 and No. 22-1 of No. 22 of the evidence No. 20, the plaintiff 200 is the chairperson of the video reporters' meeting, and the plaintiff 200 is the chairperson of the video reporters' meeting, and the defendant 200 is the party who becomes the subject of industrial action pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 5 and 6 of the Trade Union Act, or that the above refusal of production was conducted as part of the instant strike. Therefore, the defendant's act of violating the duty of disciplinary reasons as the plaintiff 600-6.

However, in the case of a non-Confidence voting for the head of the news report headquarters and the head of the news report bureau, insofar as the Defendant’s collective agreement (Article 7 of the Supplementary Convention) recognizes the opinions of the members of the association with respect to the head of the headquarters under his control, such non-Confidence voting is an act within the scope recognized by the collective agreement to deliver the employees’ intentions to the management, and thus, it is difficult to view this as a breach of the Defendant’s duty to maintain order in the workplace under Article 4 of the Rules of Employment or a violation of official duty under subparagraph 2 of Article 66. Therefore, this part does not constitute a cause for disciplinary action. Accordingly, this part is not a cause for disciplinary action (Article 4) on March 7, 2011, and judgment on interference with evidence collection (Article 7 of the Supplementary Convention) from among the personnel committee on June 18, 2011.

Article 38(1) of the Trade Union Act prohibits a person who intends to provide labor from using violence or intimidation in order to take industrial action or to appeal or persuade his or her participation in industrial action in such a way as to obstruct access by a person who intends to provide labor, operation, or other normal business.

3. 7. 17: From around 00 to about 20 minutes, many union members participated in the act of interference with returning to the company with other union members at the time when considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 22-8 of the evidence No. 22. The above plaintiffs' act is contrary to the purport of the Trade Union Act and cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for industrial action, and therefore, it does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under Article 66 subparagraph 1 of the Rules of Employment in violation of the duty to comply with the rules under Article 3 of the Rules of Employment or the duty to maintain dignity under Article 4.

However, even if it is based on the above evidence and evidence Nos. 23 and evidence Nos. 24-24 to 19, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff Jeon○○ interferes with the acts of evidence by taking the defendant's staff's Kameras on the site of the act of interference with the plaintiff Lee○○'s boarding of the elevator, or that the plaintiff Lee○○○ interfered with the plaintiff Lee○○'s boarding of the elevator, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

this section does not constitute a cause for the disciplinary action.

5) Determination on May 16, 201 as to the act of interfering with retirement (as to Plaintiff Park Jong-○, the largest ○○, and the king○ among the personnel committees on May 30, 2012, with respect to Plaintiff Park Jong-○ among the personnel committees on May 30, 201, and with respect to Plaintiff Park Jong-○ among the personnel committees on June 18, 2012

On May 16, 201, 201: around 00, a majority of the members of the press conference obstructed the vehicle of the head of the ○○○○ press headquarters who retired from the government after having completed the 'O' and prevented the leaving of the government, as seen earlier. In full view of the contents of Eul evidence 20-3, Eul evidence 22-7, and Eul evidence 22-7, and Eul evidence 22-6, all of the arguments and arguments, at the time, Park Jong-○ demanded the name of the press conference with the vehicle on which ○○○○ was on board, and the plaintiff ○○○○○ was responsible for taking part in the above collective action with the press conference by entrusting the society, and the plaintiff ○○○ and ○○○○○ participated in the above collective action. Accordingly, this act by the above plaintiffs not only contravenes Article 38(1) of the Trade Union Act, but also constitutes the defendant's obligation to observe the rules of employment or the defendant's obligation to maintain dignity under Article 64-1 of Article 6.

6) Even if there is a false or distorted nature, credit, reputation, etc. of another person's character is likely to be damaged or concealed, or a part of the facts stated in the document as a trade union activity among the personnel committee on March 5, 2012, with respect to the determination of "○○○○○" and "○○○○○○" (which was the personnel committee on March 5, 2012, with respect to the Plaintiff Kim○○, among the personnel committee on March 18, 2012), the distribution purpose of the document is not to infringe upon another person's rights or interests, but to promote the maintenance of union members' unity or working conditions and the enhancement of workers' economic and social status, and if the contents of the document are deemed as a whole, it shall be deemed that the act of distributing the document belongs to the scope of activities of a trade union, and as a matter of principle, it shall be deemed that the act of distributing the document belongs to ○○○, ○○, and ○○○○, etc., is allowed.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 22-2 and 8, the defendant included the grounds for disciplinary action on the ground that the defendant contributed to ○○○○○, or ○○○○○○, or ○○○○○○, by making a contribution to ○○○ broadcast without permission, and made a speech contrary to the defendant’s policies. Specifically, whether the defendant made a contribution to ○○○ or ○○○○○, by making a statement on the video, can be acknowledged that the personnel committee for the above plaintiffs did not hold any particular deliberation. During the instant strike period, the fact that the non-party labor union branch promoted the position of the labor union’s view on the strike through ○○ and ○○○○○○○, etc., in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to view that the above plaintiffs’ act constitutes a legitimate act within the scope of activities of the company, regardless of the contents produced and distributed, and thus, it constitutes a ground for disciplinary action.

Next, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence 22-8 and Gap evidence 5's images and arguments, the plaintiff ○○ made contributions to "○○○○," and "the plaintiff ○○○, who made a statement to "(the personnel measures after the appointment of the Director General of the Culture Bureau on the current events of Ma○○○)" and "the head of the plaintiff ○○," "(the plaintiff ○○, about the suspicion of selecting the 7th natural landscape in Jeju-do)" did not turn out the viewing rate. The plaintiff ○, "I will turn out the planning prepared by himself." The plaintiff ○○, "I will turn out the rest of the South," and "I will turn out the planning prepared by himself," and the plaintiff ○, "O," declared the "O" program production, and thus, should be widely recognized as defamation with respect to the public interest. The plaintiff ○○ program's right to health and rights cannot be known."

However, in light of the above facts, each of the above plaintiffs' remarks is consistent with the main facts, such as taking the position of the Director General of the Culture Bureau for the current events of Ma○○○, and taking a heavy personnel measure on the ground of the convenience of the inside of the "○○○○○" production, (the plaintiff ○○○○), the plan was dismissed on the ground of the suspicion of selecting the 7th natural landscape in Jeju-do, or (the plaintiff ○○○○), and the defendant ○○ was pronounced not guilty of the crime of defamation on the ground of the production of the program. Accordingly, even if the remarks are emotional or contain some parts of the contents, it is difficult to view them as constituting the grounds for disciplinary action on the ground of the contents, and on the other hand, it cannot be viewed as falling under the grounds for disciplinary action on the ground of the mere donation itself. Accordingly, this part of the above plaintiffs' acts do not constitute the grounds for disciplinary action.

7) Determination as to defamation (as to Plaintiff ○○○, Lee○, Kim○, and Kim○○, among personnel committees in each of the personnel committees on March 5, 2012 and March 18, 2012)

Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in evidence Nos. 22-2, 3, 8, and 23 of evidence Nos. 22-2, the plaintiff Lee ○○ on February 28, 2012, the plaintiff Lee ○○ conducted a press conference on the use of the corporate card of the Kim○○ president, and thereafter, it was disseminated through the ○○○○○○, etc. on the bulletin board of the ○○○○○ website, the plaintiff's act was conducted on February 28, 2012, and the plaintiff's act was conducted on the ○○○○○’s free advertising board of the Internet homepage, and the defendant's act was conducted on the ○○○○○○○○'s free advertising board of the railroad and was well-known, and the defendant's act was found to have been conducted on the ○○○○'s free advertising board of this case, and the defendant's act was found to have been conducted on the ○○○'s free advertising board of this case.

In light of the above facts, the act of preparing the above comments by the plaintiff Lee ○○○ or the above remarks by the plaintiff Kim ○○○ by the defendant's major executives, such as the president of Kim○○○, are insulting, and such remarks constitute grounds for disciplinary action under Article 66 (1) of the Rules of Employment in violation of the defendant's duty to maintain dignity under Article 4

However, according to the above-mentioned facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff ○○○ was provided with data on the use of the corporate card by the president of Kim○○○○ and raised suspicion as above, and there was a reasonable ground to believe that this falls under the scope of legitimate trade union activities, and it is difficult to deem that the grounds for disciplinary action were constituted. Moreover, the above-mentioned evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff Kim○○ made verbal abuse to Kim○○ or that the Plaintiff Kim○ participated in the preparation of the name in which the false facts were recorded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. (The Defendant’s judgment on the interview, etc. with the external media (the date of March 5, 2012 and June 18, 20

Of each personnel committee, with respect to the plaintiff Lee ○ and ○○○)

In light of the above facts, the defendant's rules of employment stipulate that the company should obtain permission from the company at the time of external announcements such as contributions under Article 7 subparagraph 1 of the defendant's rules of employment. In full view of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 22-2 and 8 of Eul's 22-2, the defendant's ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○, etc. during the strike period, and the plaintiff's ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ on May 12, 2012, the defendant's ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ was sent to the President ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ and the defendant's ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○.

However, in full view of the fact that each of the above actions was conducted in order to publicize the plaintiffs' external press contributions during the strike period of this case, and the fact that the defendant could not actually permit the plaintiffs' external press contributions during the strike period of this case, the plaintiffs' above contributions to the media was made as part of the trade union activities in Seoul branch of the Trade Union, and thus, the acts of contribution itself are justified, but the acts of contribution can only be the grounds for disciplinary action depending on the contents of the contributions made. However, in full view of the facts of prior recognition and the purport of the entire argument, the statement of the plaintiff ○○○, who is the president of the defendant, without any specific ground to see it as factually, damages the defendant's reputation, which is the defendant's violation of the duty to maintain dignity under Article 4 of the Rules of Employment, and thus, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action under Article 66 (1) of the Rules, but there is no evidence to confirm the contents of the statements made by the plaintiff ○○ with contributions to each of the above ○○○.

19) The judgment on the part of the personnel committee on April 2, 2012, as to the Plaintiff ○○, Gangwon○, and heading○, among the personnel committee on March 5, 2012, on the part of the personnel committee on April 2, 2012, as to the Plaintiff ○○, Gangwon○, and heading○, among the personnel committee on the personnel committee on April 9, 2012, on the part of the personnel committee on the day 2012, the judgment on the part of the personnel committee on the Plaintiff ○○, Jung○, Kim○, and heading○, and heading○, among the personnel committee on the day 2012, on the part of the personnel committee on April 9, 2012, on the part of ○○, ○○, ○○, Park○, ○○, and Ga○○, and one person on the part of the personnel committee on the day 200, ○○, ○○, and new ○.

Article 4 of the Trade Union Act provides that a legitimate act for an industrial action by a trade union shall be excluded in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Act, unless the act of violence and destruction is committed. In light of the provisions of the Trade Union Act, an act of leading or participating in an assembly or demonstration held by a trade union in the course of a legitimate industrial action shall not be deemed a cause of disciplinary action unless the assembly or demonstration does not constitute an act of violence or destruction that cannot be justified.

Meanwhile, in full view of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 20-3, Eul evidence Nos. 22-2, 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 23, and Eul evidence Nos. 22-6, and the overall purport of the above evidence Nos. 22-2, the grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiff Nos. 1, 20, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Jong○, Park Jong-○, and the chief executive officer of the Nowon-gu Seoul Branch of the Trade Union and Labor Relations, are the chairman of the Labor Relations Commission or the chief executive officer of the Trade Union and Labor Relations, leading the strike

The fact that the defendant planned and led the event, that he participated in multiple activities by leading the strike of this case. As to those subject to disciplinary action belonging to the Non-Party Labor Relations Commission's leader, the defendant planned, led, and proceeded with the assembly according to the class in the branch, three months of suspension from office, two months of suspension from office, the rest of director general, one month of suspension from office, etc. On the other hand, the rest of the plaintiffs who do not belong to the Non-Party Labor Relations Commission's leader, ○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, and ○○○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○○○○, an exclusive election of the plaintiff, 1 other than the above plaintiffs, ○○○, ○○, or ○○ new, etc.

Therefore, the part where the plaintiffs led the assembly and demonstration or participated in the process of the strike of this case does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action because it constitutes an act conducted by a trade union as a part of a legitimate industrial action. In addition, among the standing signboards used by the plaintiffs Y○○, ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○○, respectively, in the process of one man-person demonstration, it is difficult to view that there is any content of defamation merely because it is a relief demanding withdrawal. The phrase “○○, ○○, and ○○○○,” as seen earlier, the phrase “○○,” which is the chief of the corruption who takes the end of a fair broadcast, started with the instant strike on the damage of the management, including Kim○, ○○, and ○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○, which constituted a ground for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs 1, 2012.

According to the statement 22-8 of the certificate, the defendant is against the plaintiff waitingee.

Recognizing the fact that the standby order was issued on June 4, 2012. In the preceding facts, it is apparent that the number of days from absence without permission exceeds the number of days from the date of the standby order to June 18, 2012, which is the date of the establishment of the personnel committee for the above plaintiffs. Therefore, the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the ground for the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs participating in the strike in this case.

In full view of the overall purport of the statement and argument of evidence Nos. 22-8, Plaintiff Lee ○○○○○’s bulletin board of the Defendant’s home page, written a notice of the title, “○○ reporters, and many parts of career reporters,” and Plaintiff Kang ○○, who expressed his intention to not participate in the instant strike, stated that both ○○ and ○○ expressed his intention to participate in the strike to participate in the strike to the members of the Union and Seoul, on the other part of the members of the Republic of Korea. It can be acknowledged that Plaintiff Shin ○○ returned to Nonparty ○○○○’s home page during his overseas business trip.

In light of the above provisions of Article 38(1) of the Trade Union Act, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s act of returning the Plaintiff’s business trip to a foreign country constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under Article 66 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment as a violation of the duty to maintain dignity under Article 4 of the Rules of Employment. However, the first instance evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s act of taking part in the instant strike led by Nonparty Labor Relations Branch to refuse to provide labor, and it does not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under Article 66 subparag. 1 of the Rules of Employment. Accordingly, the first instance evidence alone does not change solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of refusing to provide labor during the overseas business trip was conducted during the business trip.

12) Sub-committees

In full view of the above, the grounds for the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs are as follows.

In addition, the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs not listed in the following table is null and void because there is no ground for disciplinary action. This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

D. Determination as to the deviation and abuse of disciplinary power

Dismissal shall be justified in cases where there are reasons for an employee’s responsibility to the extent that the employee’s employment relationship cannot be continued under the generally accepted social norms. Whether it is impossible to continue the employee’s employment relationship with the employee should be determined by comprehensively examining and determining various circumstances such as the purpose and nature of the employer’s business, conditions of the workplace, status and details of the employee’s duty, motive and background of the act of misconduct, influence on the company’s business order, such as the risk of disturbing the company’s deceptive order, and previous attitude of work (see Supreme Court Decision 198Da1198

10. The Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18189 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18189). In addition, when a disciplinary action is imposed against a worker due to a disciplinary cause, it is held at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary action. However, if it is deemed that a disciplinary action has abused the discretionary power assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary action since it substantially lacks validity under social norms, the disciplinary action may be deemed unlawful. In such cases, the term "disposition which considerably lacks validity under social norms" refers to a case where it is deemed that it is objectively unreasonable in light of the characteristics of duties, the contents and nature of the relevant misconduct, and the purpose of achieving the disciplinary action by means of a disciplinary action, and all other relevant circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da○○○○

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the disciplinary action against some of the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs to be disciplined") recognized as grounds for disciplinary action also constitutes a deviation from the discretion of disciplinary action and abuse of discretion, in light of Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 24, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 22-8, part of Eul evidence 22-6 and the purport of the whole arguments.

1) The most important reason for the Defendant to which the instant disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs was taken was led to or participated in the instant strike, and as long as the instant strike itself can be recognized as justifiable, it is inevitable to determine the legitimacy of a disciplinary decision again, except in the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs.

2) Of the disciplinary reasons acknowledged against the Plaintiff, the most important thing is that it interferes with the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the president of Kim○○○○ or the president of the headquarters for ○○○○○ Report. Although a large number of people in the process of such acts were forced to exercise force by going against the Defendant, it does not seem that the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action did not directly use violence against Kim○ or ○○○○○, or caused physical damage to Kim○○, thereby causing physical damage to the Plaintiff. 3) Furthermore, the act of refusing the production of the press conference or video press conference constitutes an act prior to the instant strike and constitutes a collective refusal to provide labor, the legitimacy of which is not recognized pursuant to the Trade Union Act. However, the said refusal is closely related to the instant strike that occurred after the instant strike, or for the same purpose, there is a reason to consider the determination thereof.

4) During the instant strike period, Nonparty Labor Relations Seoul District Office cooperated with the Defendant to make a minimum preparation for the broadcast of the Olympic Games-related news reports conducted on April 11, 2012 or around July 2012.

5) Although part of the members of the non-party labor union's Seoul Branch continued to hold an annual demonstration, etc. even after the end of the strike in this case, it was recognized that the defendant was employed during the strike, and continuously abused personnel rights by taking a unreasonable transfer order against the members of the union who participated in the strike after the termination of the strike in this case, it is inappropriate to take the non-party labor-management's responsibility for both labor and management, and it is not appropriate that the non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party labor-management's non-party's non-party labor's non-party labor.

7) The Defendant, as a member, dismissed Plaintiff ○○, who participated in an interview with the outside press, etc., taking into account the social awareness and guidance, etc., as to the Plaintiff ○○○ who participated in the interview with the outside press, etc., and imposed a suspension disposition only on Plaintiff 1 on the ground that he/she has a social ripple power among the general members of the press conference who participated in the act of interference with the retirement of ○○○○○, etc., on the same facts of misconduct as a disciplinary action and a disciplinary decision are differentiated. However, it is difficult to deem that there are any reasonable grounds for such disciplinary action (if most of the grounds for disciplinary action are not recognized, the issue of such discriminatory disciplinary action is more likely to be more affected).

Therefore, the disciplinary action against the plaintiffs to be disciplined is all null and void, and the plaintiffs' assertion pointing this out is with merit.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the instant disciplinary action against the plaintiffs is all null and void, and as long as the defendant contests this issue, there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

4. Determination on the part on the claim for wage payment

As long as the instant disciplinary action is null and void, the Defendant is obligated to pay the wages that would have been paid to the Plaintiffs without the above disciplinary action. However, the wages that the Plaintiffs had not been paid after the dismissal of the Plaintiff 1, ○○, ○○○, Ga○○, and ○○○○ was up to 20 million won, respectively, and the remaining Plaintiffs’ wages that were not paid during the period of suspension from office due to the suspension from office under the respective suspension from office are up to 10 million won does not conflict between the parties (where the judgment on the validity of the instant disciplinary action becomes final and conclusive, the parties concerned in the instant case appears to voluntarily implement the wage problem related to each other depending on the result thereof).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from September 5, 2012 to September 5, 2012 to the day of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint and each of the above amounts to the rest of the Plaintiffs, as the Plaintiffs seek against the Plaintiff Jeong-○, ○, ○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, and Lee, respectively.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiffs' claims for all reasons.