National Metal Trade Union (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Song Young-pop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Labor Law Firm and three others (Law Firm Wood et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 19, 2017

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,000 and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from September 2, 2013 to October 2, 2013, the amount of money calculated by Defendant Boseo Electrical System Korea Co., Ltd., and Defendant 4 from September 27, 2013 to February 16, 2017 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Bosio Electric Complex Korea Co., Ltd. and the defendant 4 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Labor Law Firm, and Defendant 2 is borne by the Defendants, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Bosio Electric Complex Korea Co., Ltd, and Defendant 4 is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by jointly with the Defendant Bosio Electric Complex Korea Co., Ltd. KRW 37,386,268, and Defendant Bosio Electric Complex Co., Ltd. KRW 10,500,000, Defendant 4 shall provide creative consulting on creation of the labor law firm, Defendant 2 shall provide the amount of KRW 10,00,000, and each of the above amounts, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim as of September 26, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff is an industrial trade union on a national scale comprised of workers engaged in the metal industry; Defendant Labor Law Firm (hereinafter “Defendant Creation Consulting”) is a corporation established for the purpose of corporate personnel management, labor management, social insurance, etc.; Defendant 2 is the representative member of Defendant Creation Consulting; Defendant Bosio Tras Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Bosio Tras”) is a company that manufactures a Lone Star Moer, Motor Vehicle trial device, etc., and supplies it to the completed company, such as Hyundai Motor, etc.; Defendant 4 is the representative director of the said company.

B. The Plaintiff’s subsidiaries (Seoul Branch, Daegu Branch, and racing Branch, etc.) have a number of branches, and there are many branches below each branch. The Mando Machinery Trade Union, composed of the workers of Mando Machinery Co., Ltd., was established around August 1987. However, around July 199, the “Yeo Mando Trade Union,” which is the parts of the French Automobile Co., Ltd, was established by taking over the racing plant of Mando Machinery Co., Ltd., and established Defendant Bo Mando Trade Union, which was established after the establishment of Bo Mando Trade Union, as the employees of the previous Mando Mem Union’s branch’s employees, and after the completion of the Plaintiff’s establishment of Mando Gado Subdivision. Around February 2001, Boeo Mando Trade Union, based on a structural change resolution (hereinafter “Yeo Mando Do Subdivision”).

B. The process of the lock-out by the Defendant Embio system;

(1) On February 4, 2010, in order to improve the fixed cost structure of the guard worker, five of the 13 employees of the 13 factory security guards wishing to change the production position among the 13 workers of the 13 factory is placed in the production position, and the remainder is exclusively in charge of the 2 factory security services, and the 1 factory security services are assigned to the service company.

B. On February 4, 2010, Shella Mando Branch refused to engage in overtime work and night work, asserting that “the externalization of security services is in violation of the collective agreement, and must be withdrawn.” On February 5, 2010, the member’s general meeting held a vote for and against the union members, decided to engage in industrial action with the consent of 92%, and then engaged in an strawing activity that reduces the amount of production to 70% for 10 hours from February 9, 2010 to February 12, 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant Boeo Mando Branch decided to reduce the amount of production to 10% for 10 hours from February 9, 2010 to February 16, 2010.

(c) Circumstances on structural changes to a company-level trade union in the Athio Mando Subdivision;

(1) On April 20, 2010, when a lock-out has become long-term, some of the members of Leseo Mando Subdivision organized a meeting of union members for union members (joint representative: Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4; hereinafter “help-out”).

B. On May 14, 2010, Nonparty 3 signed by 471 members of the Haneo Mando Subdivision and demanded the president of the non-party 1 and the Plaintiff’s racing branch to call an extraordinary general meeting for structural change, and requested the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Agency Port Office to nominate himself as the convening authority of the general meeting.

On May 18, 2010, Nonparty 3 announced the convocation of an extraordinary general meeting to hold on May 19, 2010 the general meeting consisting of a structural change of the Boeo Mando Branch. On May 19, 2010, Nonparty 3 held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “first general meeting”) in the presence of 544 of the 601 union members. On May 19, 2010, at the first general meeting, a resolution was made to make the structural change to the Boeo Mando branch of the industrial trade union as the company-level trade union, which is the company-level trade union, and to establish the regulations of the Boeo Mando branch trade union, and to appoint Nonparty 3 as the chairperson and Nonparty 5 as the secretary general.

x) The executives of the Boeo Mando Branch asserted that it was defective in the procedures for convening the first general meeting and that it is impossible to make a structural change. Moreover, on May 24, 2010, Nonparty 1 and the president of the Plaintiff’s racing branch did not make a public announcement of convening the extraordinary general meeting required by Nonparty 3, etc. by May 24, 2010. Furthermore, on May 24, 2010, Nonparty 1 submitted a written request for disciplinary action against Nonparty 3, etc. to the Plaintiff’s racing branch, and on May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff made a decision of expulsion against Nonparty 3.

(v) on May 24, 2010, the president of the Daegu Regional Labor Agency recommended Nonparty 1 to hold a general meeting meeting with a structural change as an agenda, and requested on May 25, 2010 to make a resolution on the nomination of the general meeting convening authority. Meanwhile, on May 25, 2010, the Defendant YOO system withdrawn a lock-out in accordance with the purport of the Decision 2010Kahap58, Daegu District Court racing-Support 2010, Daegu District Court Decision 2010Kahap58.

⑹ 원고의 경주지부장은 2010. 6. 3. ‘조직형태 변경을 안건으로 하는 발레오만도지회의 총회를 2010. 6. 10. 경주 보문 켄싱턴 리조트에서 개최한다’는 소집공고를 하였다. 그러나 경북지방노동위원회는 2010. 6. 4. 원고의 경주지부장이 한 소집공고는 실현 가능성이 부족하다는 등의 이유로 소외 3을 총회 소집권자로 지명하는 의결을 하였고, 그에 따라 위 포항지청장은 소외 3을 발레오만도지회의 임시총회 소집권자로 지명하였다.

⑺ 소외 3은 2010. 6. 4. 원고의 제명 결정에 대한 재심을 청구하는 한편 임시총회소집을 공고하였다. 2010. 6. 7. 조합원 601명 중 550명이 참석한 가운데 조합원 임시총회(이하 ‘제2차 총회’라 한다)가 개최되었는데, 제1차 총회와 같은 내용의 결의가 이루어졌다(이하 1차 총회 결의 및 2차 총회 결의를 통칭하여 ‘이 사건 조직형태 변경 결의’라고 한다).

⑻ 발레오전장노동조합은 2010. 6. 7. 경주시장에게 노동조합 설립신고를 하였고, 경주시장은 같은 날 이를 수리하였다.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 8, 25, 58, 68, 70, 71, 107 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, 11 through 28, 69, and 70, as a result of commissioning the delivery of documents to the Daegu District Court and its branch offices, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(i)Claims for delivery of partnership fees or for damages, and claims for tort due to denial of lump sum deduction of partnership fees.

The instant structural change resolution is limited to ① Yeo Mando Subdivision, which is unable to be the principal agent of a structural change, and ② in violation of the convocation and public announcement procedure; ② in the process of the general assembly, the involvement in Defendant Bosio System was damaged in independence and democracy; ③ there was a defect in the resolution to enact rules and the resolution to elect directors; ③ the Defendants are general assembly lacking autonomy by affecting unfair labor practices through a series of control and interventions recruited by the Defendants; ④ the Defendants constitutes a labor advisory contract and the delivery of monetary consideration against the maintenance of the labor union system guaranteed by the Constitution, and a juristic act against social order (violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, such serious defect shall be deemed null and void.

Therefore, although the right to receive union fees from union members’ wages under the mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff is still an industrial trade union, the right to receive the union fees from union members’ wages is still not to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff, who is the Plaintiff, the Defendant YO system, and Defendant 4 did not pay the union fees after deducting the union members’ wages from the union members

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as a priority claim against the Defendant Boseo system, seek payment of KRW 26,886,268 (=13,443,134 (monthly union expense) x 2 months) in total, as a part of the first claim against the Defendant Boseo system, of KRW 26,886,268. In addition, by refusing to pay the union expenses as above, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 50,000,000 as a joint claim against the Defendant Boseo system and Defendant 4, as a tort that infringed the Plaintiff’s right to organize.

See The Defendants: (a) went through the instant resolution on structural change under a vague and consistent plan to either withdraw from the Plaintiff, which is an industrial trade union, and convert it into a company-level trade union; and (b) thereby, controlled and improved the organization or operation of the Leeo Mando Branch by implementing the instant resolution on structural change. As a result, the instant structural change was made and the Plaintiff was infringed on the right to organize.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is seeking for payment of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, in collaboration with the Defendants, by claiming compensation for intangible damages or mental damages arising from tort (in collusion with the Defendant for the organization or operation of the Boseo Mando Branch; hereinafter “instant unfair labor practice”).

B. Details of the defendants' assertion

The Defendants conspired to establish and implement the instant structural change plan, and did not engage in unfair labor practices in control and intervention, and the instant structural change was made in accordance with the independent decision-making by the members of Boseo Mando Subdivision, which may become the principal agent of the structural change. As such, the said structural change resolution is valid.

Therefore, there is no room to establish the liability for damages arising from unfair labor practices in control and intervention, or the liability for payment of partnership expenses or liability for damages on the premise of the invalidity of the resolution on structural change of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

3. The judgment on the claim for damages arising from the request for the delivery of partnership expenses against the defendant Audio Systems or the non-performance of partnership expenses, and the tort liability arising from the rejection of collective deduction against the defendant Audio system, and the association expenses against the defendant 4

The Plaintiff filed each of the above claims on the premise that the instant resolution on structural change is null and void. As such, I first examine whether the said resolution on structural change is null and void.

A. Whether the Allied Mando Subdivision can be the principal agent of a resolution on structural change

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In order to become the subject of a structural change, a subdivision of an industrial trade union must have the substance as an unincorporated association and have independence as to the industrial trade union. However, Boeo Mando Subdivision did not have any independent rules or rules distinct from the Plaintiff, and did not have any independent enforcement agency, and even in the decision-making structure, it was subordinate to, and did not have independent trade union activities. Accordingly, the resolution on a structural change in this case is null and void as it is by an organization or organization that cannot be the subject of that resolution.

Shed Judgment

㈎ 노동조합법 제16조 제1항 제8호 및 제2항 (이하 ‘이 사건 규정’이라 한다)은 노동조합이 설립되어 존속하고 있는 도중에, 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 2/3 이상의 찬성에 의한 총회의 의결을 거쳐 노동조합의 조직형태를 변경하는 것을 허용하고 있다.

In principle, an industrial trade union is a first-company trade union consisting of workers working in the same industry and its members are one unit trade union consisting of individual workers as its members. Even if an industrial trade union has a subordinate organization within its inside, this constitutes an organization for the internal organization management of an industrial trade union, not a separate trade union, or a part of its organizational system. However, an industrial trade union establishes subordinate organizations, such as a branch, sub-branch, sub-branch, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "sub-branch, etc.") under an area or a place of business as an independent trade union, depending on specific matters, depending on specific matters, it is not limited to the nature of the industrial trade union, but to the extent that its sub-branch, etc. acts as an independent organization consisting of its employees with independent rules and executive organs for the purposes of maintaining and improving the working conditions and improving the economic and social status of its employees, and further, it is necessary to maintain the industrial trade union’s independent organization or its organizational status as an independent trade union, such as an independent trade union, etc., even after the industrial trade union still has independent collective bargaining or organizational status as an independent trade union.

Accordingly, even if a subdivision, etc. of an industrial trade union has the substance of an unincorporated association and is recognized independent as a workers’ organization similar to a company-level trade union, it has the ability to independently make a decision on its unique matters with respect to the industrial trade union. As long as the subdivision, etc. has the capacity to make such a decision, it may choose and change the objectives and organization of the subdivision, etc. through an independent and democratic resolution at the general meeting organized by its employees, and further, it may have the substance of the trade union with the capacity to maintain and improve working conditions and improve the workers’ economic and social status through the amendment of the articles of association or regulations at the time of exercising the right to organize. Furthermore, in terms of the need for the subdivision, etc. to convert into a company-level trade union by leaving from the position of a subdivision, etc. affiliated with an industrial trade union as an independent workers’ organization similar to that of a company-level trade union, it is reasonable to deem that the subdivision, etc. has the capacity to independently convert into a company-level trade union equivalent to that of the previous company-level trade union-level 2, etc.

㈏ 살피건대, 앞서 채택한 증거들 및 갑 제61 내지 66호증, 을가 제11, 17호증, 을다 30 내지 60호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정하거나 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사실 및 사정을 종합하면, 발레오만도지회는 산업별 노동조합인 원고의 지회로서 단체교섭 및 단체협약체결 능력을 가지고 있지 아니하더라도 기업별 노동조합과 유사한 근로자단체로서 법인 아닌 사단의 실질을 가지고 있어 독립성이 있으므로 이 사건 규정에서 정한 조직형태 변경 결의에 의하여 원고에 속한 지회 등의 지위에서 벗어나 독립한 기업별 노동조합의 조직을 갖출 수 있다고 봄이 타당하다.

① The Allied Mando Branch was originally incorporated into the Plaintiff’s branch on February 2001 through the Mando Machinery Trade Union, which is a company-level trade union, and Boseo Mando Trade Union. Even after the incorporation into the Plaintiff, Boseo Mando Branch continued to have continued to run the number of vehicles attached to the Plaintiff’s representative meeting or an officer’s election at the Plaintiff’s board of representatives, and Boseo Mando Trade Union was established in 1987.

② On May 23, 2001, the Han Mando Subdivision enacted the rules of the Han Mando Subdivision and amended the said rules up to nine times at the time of the second general meeting. In addition to the rules, it also enacted and implemented detailed rules such as the rules of the branch accounts, the rules of the local council’s business trip, the rules of the implementation of the guarantee of the status of the branch offices (referring to the rules to support the union members who were disadvantaged in the course of performing the union activities), the rules of the local council’s business trip, the rules of travel expenses and the regulations of the local

③ The Allied Mando Subdivision has its own organization (general meeting, representatives’ meeting, regular executive committee, audit committee, and election committee) and clearly sets out the method and authority of organizing each organization in the rules of the Aeo Mando Subdivision. There was a branch president, site president, and office chief, but they were elected by the direct, secret, and secret ballot among the members of the Aeo Mando Subdivision.

④ The Allied Mando Branch had 12 departments, such as the organization department, dispute department, sports department, and the Ministry of Education, and the elected chief secretary directed and supervised them. The Allied Mando Branch has prepared a business plan every year, approved the competitions of representatives, and conducted trade union activities based on this. The business plan is specified in the business plan, the details of the business plan, the business budget, etc. of each department.

⑤ The Allied Mando Subdivision managed revenue and expenditure on its own in accordance with the rules and the rules of the branch accounting. The president of the Allied Mando Subdivision has compiled a budget every fiscal year and obtained a resolution of the branch council (Article 15 subparag. 3 of the Rule). After the budget was executed, he/she prepared a report of settlement of accounts and obtained approval of the Audit Committee and the branch council (Article 19, Article 17, and Article 28 of the Rules).

6. The Defendant Audio system deducts union dues from the union’s wages according to the mutual aid agreement between the union and the union’s wages, and paid part of the union dues directly to the Audio Mando Subdivision instead of paying to the Plaintiff.

7) The Plaintiff’s rules stipulate that it is impossible to delegate the right to collective bargaining to each company’s branch. However, in fact, it seems that Boeo Mando Branch independently conducted collective bargaining with Defendant Boeo Mando Branch on working conditions, and the Plaintiff’s practice was established to affix only the seal on the collective agreement upon completion of collective bargaining. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff or Bo Mando Branch had engaged in collective bargaining with Defendant Boeo Mando Branch.

8) Article 39 of the Rules of the Han Mando Subdivision provides that “The resolution of an industrial action by the unit of the branch shall be approved by a majority of the incumbent members and by the consent of a majority of the incumbent members and by a majority of the incumbent members,” so that Le Mando Subdivision independently conducted the industrial action. In fact, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Bo Mando Subdivision did not have obtained any approval or permission from the plaintiff or the plaintiff's racing branch as to the industrial action around February 4, 2010, which was the group of this case.

㈐ 따라서, 발레오만도지회가 2010. 6. 7. 제2차 총회를 개최하여 재적조합원 601명 중 550명 출석, 출석인원의 97.5%인 536명의 찬성으로 이 사건 조직형태 변경 결의를 하였음은 기초 사실에서 본 바와 같다. 이는 재적조합원 과반수의 출석과 출석조합원 2/3 이상의 찬성에 의한 총회의 의결을 거쳐 조직형태를 변경할 것을 요건으로 정한 이 사건 규정 내지 발레오만도지회 규칙 제21조 제2호의 요건을 충족한다. 따라서 다른 특별한 사정이 없는 한, 이 사건 조직형태 변경 결의는 유효하다.

B. Whether there is a defect in the resolution of the second general meeting

In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted, the second general meeting resolution is legitimate, which provides that “Yeo Mando Branch, a subdivision of an industrial trade union, shall be made within the company-level trade union, a structural change shall be made; the regulations of the Yeo Man District Trade Union shall be made; and the non-party 3 shall be elected to the chairperson and the non-party 5 as the secretary general,” taking into account the following circumstances.

(1) On June 4, 2010, Nonparty 3 still maintained the Plaintiff’s status as a member of the board of directors since the review procedure on the decision of expulsion was in progress on June 4, 2010. It appears that there exists a reasonable ground for designating Nonparty 3 as a convening authority upon the demand of the head of the Daegu Regional Labor Administration’s branch office. Moreover, there is no evidence to prove that there was an administrative appeal and administrative litigation filing within the filing period against the nomination disposition by the head of the Posing Port Office, and there is no serious and obvious defect in the above nomination disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot contest its validity unless there is a serious and apparent defect in the above nomination disposition. It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion alone has a serious and apparent defect in the above nomination disposition. In light of the first general meeting’s reasoning, it is difficult to conclude that the second general meeting’s resolution was invalid even if the second general meeting’s resolution was adopted.

See Next, we examine whether there is a defect in the progress of the general meeting. If the place of activities of a trade union is located in a place of business, reasonable discipline or restriction based on the ownership or management rights of the facility should be complied with (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da18542, Sept. 25, 1992). According to the evidence No. 80, Nonparty 1, who was the branch of the Yeo Mando Branch meeting, was in cooperation with other members on Feb. 13, 2010, which led to the act of assaulting and damaging the secret party to the system of the Yeo Mando Branch meeting and damaging the material. According to the above evidence No. 1000, it is difficult to recognize that the 6th anniversary of the fact that the 6th anniversary of the 1 year and six-year grace period had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court’s 5-year branch, and that the above judgment became final and conclusive on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s act of opening the 2nd general meeting was not sufficient to recognize.

Reference to whether there exists any defect in the resolution for the enactment of the Code. In light of the fact that the second general meeting was a general meeting of the nature to ratification the resolution of the first general meeting, the agenda of the second general meeting ought to be deemed to have been widely known to the union members. Moreover, since a trade union’s structural change inevitably entails an inevitable change in its bylaws, the agenda referred to as “scale change” may be interpreted to include a substantial extent to realize the said agenda effectively and automatically. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that there is a defect in the procedure or notice of the agenda, and even if there is a defect, it is difficult to deem that it is a serious defect to the extent that all the effects of the remaining resolution excluding the resolution for structural change are invalid.

Along with respect to whether there is any defect in the resolution of the board of directors. According to Article 21 of the Rules of the Nagoya Mando Subdivision, a resolution may be passed with the consent of at least 2/3 of the incumbent majority of the members present in the case of non-Confidence (nuclear). In this case, the resolution passed at the second general meeting of the second general meeting of the members, which selects Non-Confidence 3 and Non-Confidence 5 as the executive officers of the Han Mando Subdivision Trade Union may be seen as the resolution passed by the non-Confidence and the appointment of new executive officers, including Non-Confidence 1, who had been the president of the existing branch of the branch, and the resolution passed by the resolution passed with the consent of at least 2/3 of the incumbent majority of the members present, satisfying the requirements for a special resolution stipulated in Article 21 of the Rules of the Bo Mando Subdivision Subdivision. In addition, with respect to the fact that the "non-Confidence Confidence" and the "new election of executive officers" are not included in the agenda of the public notice of the special meeting.

(c) Whether independence has been lost due to unfair labor practices in control and entry;

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant Yeo Mando Subdivision decided to make a structural change with the consent of 50 members present at the meeting of 601 members and 536 members present at the meeting; (b) unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the second general assembly may be deemed to have been able to make an independent decision in accordance with its free atmosphere; (c) the Plaintiff’s members of the Yeo Mando Subdivision could have been able to make an independent decision on the instant structural change; (d) it was the cause of the instant structural change as a result of the instant structural change; (e) it appears to have been the result of the instant structural change; (e) it appears to have been the cause of the instant structural change; and (e) it is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant Yeo Mando Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision’s structural change was an unfair labor system’s structural change to the extent that it appears to have been able to have been able to obtain a large number of members of the Plaintiff’s structural change, rather than the instant structural change.

D. Whether Article 103 of the Civil Act is violated

However, as seen above, insofar as it cannot be recognized that the instant resolution on structural change was defective in its subject, procedure, process, details of resolution, autonomy, etc., the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as a resolution in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the invalidity of the instant resolution on structural change cannot be accepted in entirety. Therefore, without any need to further examine the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of union dues or compensation for damages under the premise of invalidation, and the claim for tort following the rejection of collective deduction between union dues and association dues.

4. Determination on the claim for damages against the defendants due to the unfair labor practice of this case

(a)the occurrence of undue labor practices and liability for damages caused by control and entry;

Article 81 Subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act prohibits “the act of an employee to control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union” by stipulating “the act of an employer to control or intervene in the organization or operation of a trade union” as unfair labor practices. “Control” refers to cases where the employer has the leading authority over the organization and operation of a trade union, and “the act does not reach that level,” but it affects the decision-making of a trade union by interfering with the organization and operation of a trade union. In addition, “the organization” refers to all the acts of an employee aiming at the formation of a trade union, such as preparing for organization, etc., and “operation” refers to not only the internal operation of a trade union, but also all the activities aimed at the maintenance, continuation, and expansion of a trade union, including activities aimed at achieving the objectives of voluntary collective bargaining and industrial action, including propaganda, enlightenment, and education. Although it is immediately evaluated that there was an unfair labor practice, the act of control or intervention in the trade union is deemed to constitute an unlawful act that violates the requirements of tort, as well as to the extent of property damage.

B. Whether the Defendants recognized the instant unfair labor practice

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence adopted above and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 18 through 24, 26 through 36, 60, 77 through 106, and 108 through 119, the overall purport of the pleadings can be comprehensively considered, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants conspired to control and opened the operation of the Leseo Mando Subdivision and constitutes unfair labor practices prohibited by Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act:

(1) On February 9, 2010 to February 12, 2010, the Atheo Mando Subdivision was against the Defendant Atho Mando Subdivision’s promotion of the externalization of the security service, and the relationship between the Athio Mando Subdivision and the Defendant Athio system she was turned out by lock-out, etc. from February 16, 2010 to February 16, 2010.

B. On March 19, 2010, Defendant 1 provided Defendant 1 with documents on “the review of legal issues surrounding lock-out” from Defendant 1’s creative consulting, as well as documents on “the Council for Strategy of Industrial Actions” on several occasions. On April 16, 2010, Defendant 2 concluded a consulting agreement with creative consulting to provide advice on all matters related to labor-management relations and the participant’s monthly remuneration and payment of contingent remuneration to the creative consulting (the advisory fee was KRW 25 million each month). Defendant 2 provided various advice on pending issues in labor-management relations to the intervenors before and after the conclusion of the consulting agreement. The main contents are as follows.

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 2010. 3. 19. 직장폐쇄를 둘러싼 법적 제문제 검토 ○ 만약 직장폐쇄를 철회하고 업무에 복귀시킬 경우 공장점거, 태업, 생산 활동 참여 조합원에 대한 보복 등 통제 불능의 혼란이 초래될 가능성이 매우 큼 ○ 따라서 현재 상황에서는 지회가 힘의 균형에서 우위에 있다고 볼 수 있으며, 복귀 후 납품업체의 주문을 충족시킬 수 있는 안정적 생산 활동과 사업장 질서 유지에 대한 보장이 없는 한 직장폐쇄의 철회는 어려운 상황임 ◆ 2010. 3. 30. 쟁의행위 전략회의 ○ 현재 노동부, 경찰청으로부터 직장폐쇄의 정당성이 유지되고 있고, 조합 집행부가 구속되어 파업추진력이 약화되었으며, 노노갈등이 심화되고 있는 상황 ○ 관리자와 함께 조합원들 사이에 여론을 주도하고 회사의 입장을 전파할 수 있는 key man을 선정하여 적극적인 조합 탈퇴 여론을 조성하여야 함 ○ key man을 통한 조합 탈퇴 작업은 탈퇴 대상 조합원을 미리 선정하고 반드시 조직적이고 적극적으로 진행되어야 함 ○ 자체 총회를 통해 원고로부터 탈퇴 또는 기업별 노조로 조직형태변경 결의 ○ 업무복귀를 희망하는 조합원을 선별하여 대상자 전원에 대하여 자택대기발령을 실시하고 자택대기 상황에서 업무복귀 프로그램을 시행 ◆ 2010. 4. 1. 조업정상화 & 노사협력체제 구축을 위한 환경조성 방안 검토 ○ 집행부 불신임 절차 진행을 통해 조업 정상화와 협력적 노사관계 구축을 희망하는 조합원들을 집단화할 수 있는 환경이 조성되도록 하는 방안을 검토할 필요가 있음 ○ 토론 진행과정에서 온건하고 합리적인 리더그룹이 전면에 부상하여 집행부 불신임, 조직형태변경 등 향후 방향을 제시 ○ 상황이 유리하게 전개되면 그 자리에서 “집행부 불신임 및 조직형태변경”을 위한 연명부에 서명을 받음 ○ workshop은 차수를 연속하여 진행함으로써 방해공작 가능성 차단 ◆ 2010. 4. 6. 쟁의행위 대응 전략회의 ○ 조합 내부 상황을 파악하여 현 집행부에 비판적인 새로운 세력과 key man을 지원하여 여론을 장악하고 조합원 설득작업이 이루어져야 할 것임 ○ 조합원 수를 합리화하는 방안을 목표로 삼고 장기적으로는 산별노조 지회로 있는 노조의 조직형태를 기업별 노조로 전환시키는 방안을 검토하여야 할 것임 ○ 새로운 리더그룹이 조합 집행부를 대신하여 대안을 제시하고 향후 조합 합리화 방안이나 노조의 조직형태 변경에 있어 주도적인 역할을 담당할 수 있도록 지원하여야 함 ◆ 2010. 4. 「노조 조직형태 변경」 절차 및 법적 문제점 검토 ○ 현재 노조 집행부에 대항할 수 있는 세력을 규합하여 1차적으로 현재 노동운동의 문제점, 발레오만도지회 집행부의 문제점 등을 토의한 후 조직형태 변경의 필요성에 대한 의식화 작업을 진행함 ○ 회사는 총회 소집공고 등 투표와 관련된 절차, 총회 장소 제공 등 편의제공을 통해 모든 절차를 신속히 진행하여야 함 ○ 조직형태변경에 대한 신속한 의결 및 각 개별 조합원들로부터 원고에 대한 탈퇴서를 취합하여야 함 ○ 총회 당일 관할 행정 관청에 기업별 노조 설립 신고를 할 수 있도록 지원할 필요가 있음 ◆ 2010. 4. 20. 쟁의행위 대응 전략회의 ○ 현재 발레오지회 집행부는 현 사태가 마무리되는 시점까지 사퇴는 불가하다는 입장을 표명한바, 향후 조직형태변경 절차는 집행부를 배제한 일반 조합원 중심으로 진행하여야 할 것임 ○ 회사는 1단계로 교육을 통한 대항세력의 의식 전환과 조직형태변경에 대한 논리를 제공하고, 2단계로 대항세력이 활동할 수 있는 시간과 공간을 확보하며, 3단계로 신속하게 조직형태변경이 이루어질 수 있도록 총회계획을 수립하고 행정기관에 적절하게 대응하여야 함 ◆ 2010. 4. 27. 쟁의행위 대응 전략회의 ○ 합리적이고 온건한 대항세력이 별도의 대책위원회를 구성하여 여론 형성 주도권을 잡고 노조 내부적으로 조합 집행부 탄핵(불신임 또는 해임)안을 가결시키고 새로운 임원을 선출하는 방식으로 나아가야 할 것임 ◆ 2010. 5. 4. 쟁의행위 대응 전략회의 ○ 비상대책위원회 명의의 지회임원 불신임을 위한 임시총회 소집요구와 관련한 ‘조합원에게 드리는 글’, 임시총회소집 및 임시총회소집권자 지명요청, 조직형태 변경 및 노조 설립 총회 회의록, 발레오전장노조 규약 가안 첨부

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The term “the term “the term “the term “the term “the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “the term” means “the term “the term “or” means the term “the term “or” means the term “the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “or” means the term “oror” means” means” means to disify the Plaintiff’s affiliates.

x) The contingent fee arrangement between Defendant Boreop system and Defendant Creative Consulting (A. 83) states that, in the event that the Plaintiff, an industrial trade union existing in Defendant Boreop system shop, changes its structural structure into a company-level trade union, Defendant Boreop system, there is a note 4 to adjust and agree contingent fees to be paid for Defendant Boreop consulting from KRW 100 to KRW 20 million. In light of such contingent fee arrangement, it is reasonable to view that Defendant Boreop system was aware of the strategies of Defendant Boreop system’s creative consulting aimed at nullifyinging Boeo Mando Subdivision by a structural change to a company-level trade union, and further consented thereto (Defendant Boreop system). However, unlike the language and text of the aforesaid contingent fee arrangement, it cannot be acknowledged that Defendant Boreop system’s agreement was concluded in the process of termination of the contract, even if the aforesaid contingent fee agreement was received in the process of its structural change.

(v) Defendant Audio system asserts that the documents, such as the “Industrial Actions Response Strategic Meeting” prepared by Defendant Audio Counseling Co., Ltd. are merely internally prepared from Defendant Audio Counseling and that there was no delivery on the side of Defendant Audio System. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, Defendant Audio System’s creative consulting can be acknowledged as having prepared the documents “measures to stabilize labor relations” accompanied by the form of “Request for the designation of a person holding an extraordinary general meeting or special meeting meeting”, “the minutes (Concurrent use of manual for proceedings),” “trade union regulations”, and “report on Establishment of Trade Union”, and provided them to Defendant Bioudio System. In addition, Defendant Audio Counseling may be recognized as having prepared the documents of “Industrial Actions Response Strategic Meeting” in advance and regularly convened with Defendant Audio System representative, and employees Nonparty 6. As such, it is reasonable to view that Defendant Audio’s creative consulting agreement and consultation with Defendant Audio’s creative consulting should be provided at least once in the form of an agreement or destruction of evidence.

⑹ 실제로 피고 창조컨설팅이 제공한 위 자문 내용대로 피고 발레오시스템스 사업장에는 소외 3 등의 주도로 2010. 4. 20. ‘조조모’가 결성되었고, 이들이 주축이 되어 발레오만도지회로부터 이탈한 조합원들을 규합하였으며, 2010. 5. 19. 및 2010. 6. 7.에는 임시총회가 개최되어 발레오만도지회의 조직형태를 기업별 노동조합인 발레오전장노동조합으로 변경하는 결의가 이루어졌다. 뿐만 아니라 이와 같이 조직형태변경 결의가 이루어지는 과정에서 작성된 문건인 ‘조합원에게 드리는 글-지회임원 불신임을 위한 임시총회 소집요구와 관련하여-’, ‘임시총회소집 및 임시총회소집권자지명요청’, ‘요청인 명부’, ‘조직형태 변경 및 노조 설립 총회 회의록’, ‘발레오전장시스템스(주) 노동조합 규약’ 등은 모두 피고 창조컨설팅이 피고 발레오시스템스에게 제공한 ‘노사관계 안정화 방안’에 첨부된 자료와 형식, 주요 내용, 어법상 잘못된 표현 등까지 상당 부분 일치한다. 피고 발레오시스템스 측은 부인하지만, 갑작스럽게 조조모의 공동 대표로 선출된 소외 3이 이 사건 1, 2차 임시총회 소집공고문에 총회 안건으로 ‘노동조합의 조직형태 변경에 관한 건’을 명시하고 이후 조직형태변경을 위한 절차를 순조롭게 진행하였는데, ‘노조의 조직형태변경’이라는 용어는 당시 노동 현장에서 보편화되지 않았을 것이라는 점(특히 산업별 노동조합 지회에서 기업별 노동조합으로 전환하는 경우)에서 소외 3 등이 피고 발레오시스템스를 통하여 피고 창조컨설팅의 자문 내용을 전달받았다고 봄이 경험칙상 자연스럽다.

⑺ 조조모 회원들은 직장폐쇄 중 사업장에 복귀하지 않은 조합원들을 개별적으로 접촉하여 ‘원고를 탈퇴하고 조조모에 찬성하면 개별 복귀가 이루어질 수 있다’는 취지의 말을 하였다. 한편 위에서 본 바와 같이 피고 창조컨설팅이 조직형태변경을 위한 구체적인 계획을 설계하고 피고 발레오시스템스가 이에 동의한 점 및 당시 근로자들은 ‘조조모’의 뜻을 회사의 뜻과 동일한 것으로 인식하고 있었던 것으로 보이고, 실제로 원고에 대한 탈퇴서를 작성하면서 사업장 복귀를 희망했던 근로자들에 대하여는 별다른 징계가 이루어지지도 아니한 점에 비추어 볼 때, 피고 발레오시스템스는 사업장 복귀에 관한 결정권을 가지고 발레오만도지회 조합원들이 조직형태 변경을 추진하는 ‘조조모’에 협력하여 이들이 조직형태 변경 결의에 찬성하도록 개입하였던 것으로 볼 수 있다.

⑻ 2010년 2월 초의 연장근로 거부 및 태업, 2010년 3월 이루어진 집회 등에는 각 집회 때마다 200~400명에 이르는 발레오만도지회 조합원들이 참가하였다. 그러나 피고 발레오시스템스는 사업장에 복귀하거나 ‘조조모’에 참여하는 등 발레오전장노동조합으로의 조직형태 변경에 찬성하는 조합원들에 대하여는 징계를 하지 않거나 가벼운 수준의 징계에 그친 반면, 소외 1 등 발레오만도지회의 임원 또는 조합원들에 대해서는 정직 3월부터 해고에 이르는 중징계 처분을 하였다. 이는 형평의 원칙에 입각하여 비위행위에 대한 책임을 추궁하기 위한 징계가 아니라 실제로는 피고 발레오시스템스가 발레오만도지회를 유지ㆍ강화하기 위한 노동조합 활동을 하는 것을 저지하고 발레오전장노동조합으로의 조직형태변경을 우회적으로 지원하기 위한 의도에서 행한 것으로 볼 여지가 충분하다.

⑼ 피고 발레오시스템스는 직장폐쇄 철회 이전에 업무에 복귀하지 않은 발레오만도지회 조합원들에 대하여 자택대기명령을 내리고 장기간의 교육을 실시하였는데, 그 과정에서 이미 업무에 복귀한 조합원들과 접촉하지 못하도록 이동 장소와 시간을 제한하고 감시하는 등의 행위를 하였다. 피고 발레오시스템스의 이러한 행위는 피고 창조컨설팅의 위와 같이 체계적인 자문 내용에 비추어 볼 때, 결국 조직형태변경 결의가 성립하는데 방해가 되는 조합원들이 다른 조합원들과의 의견을 교류하는 것을 차단하고, 조합원들을 분리하기 위해 행한 것으로서, 자주적인 노동조합 활동에 개입하려는 부당노동행위 의사가 있었던 것으로 추단된다.

⑽ 피고 발레오시스템스는 원고에 대한 탈퇴서 작성을 거부한 조합원들만을 대상으로 지피지기 TFT, 개선 TFT를 구성한 후, 상당 기간 동안 본래 사업장에서 담당하던 업무와 무관한 풀 뽑기, 페인트 칠, 화장실 청소 등을 하도록 지시하거나 사무실 복도 중간에 책상을 놓고 홀로 앉아있도록 하였다. 이와 같은 지시는 발레오만도지회를 유지하고자 하는 조합원들을 심리적으로 압박함으로써 원고에 대한 탈퇴를 종용하려는 것으로 볼 수 있다.

⑾ 피고 발레오시스템스와 피고 4는 ‘발레오만도지회의 대항세력인 조합원을 위한 조합원들의 모임이 결성되도록 유도하고, 2010. 6. 7. 임시총회를 거쳐 기업별 노동조합인 발레오전장노동조합을 설립할 수 있도록 지원함으로써 근로자가 노동조합을 조직 또는 운영하는 것을 지배하거나 이에 개입하는 행위를 하였다’는 혐의사실로 기소되었다(대구지방법원 경주지원 2015고단306). 또한 피고 창조컨설팅과 피고 2, 전무 소외 2는 피고 발레오시스템스에게 노무관리에 대한 상담ㆍ자문을 하면서 피고 4 등 피고 발레오시스템스 사측 관계자 등이 발레오전장노동조합 설립을 지원한다는 정을 알면서도 이를 돕기 위하여 관련 절차를 알려주거나 조합설립에 필요한 서류들을 작성ㆍ검토해줌으로써 피고 4 등의 부당노동행위 범행을 용이하게 하여 이를 방조한 혐의로 기소되었다( 서울남부지방법원 2015고단2030호 ). 뿐만 아니라 피고 2와 소외 2는 위와 같은 부당노동행위 방조 사실 및 공인노무사법 위반 사실로 고용노동부장관에 의해 공인노무사등록이 주6) 취소되었다.

C. Occurrence of liability for damages and amount of damages

As seen above, the Defendants’ above acts constitute unfair labor practices prohibited under Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act, and this constitutes a planned act in accordance with the purpose of nullifying Boseo Mando Subdivision under the Plaintiff’s control, and in view of the fact that such an act resulted in the Plaintiff’s structural change and the result of the resolution of structural change in the instant case and the resolution of Boseo Mando Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision, it is recognized that such act would not be acceptable in light of sound social norms and social norms. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right to organize has been infringed, and the Plaintiff suffered intangible and intangible damages that cannot be compensated solely due to property damages, such as weakening the power of branch conference, which is a subordinate organization, and thus, the Defendants are jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused to the Plaintiff due to such unlawful act (the instant unfair labor act) under Article 760 of the Civil Act.

Furthermore, we examine the amount of damages in light of the following: (a) the background leading up to the instant unfair labor practice; (b) the process of the instant unfair labor practice; (c) the degree of the Defendants’ control and intervention; and (d) the result therefrom, as a result of the instant structural change, various circumstances such as the reduction of the number of union members by the resolution of the instant structural change; and (d) on the other hand, other factors such as the operation of the labor union in the Han Mando Subdivision might have been the major cause of the instant structural change; and (e) the amount of damages jointly and severally liable by the Defendants shall be set at KRW 10 million.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10 million and the amount of money calculated by each of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 26, 2013 to February 16, 2017, which is the following day after the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim as of September 26, 2013, Defendant 2, from October 2, 2013, Defendant Erais system, Defendant 4, and Defendant 4 from September 27, 2013 to February 16, 2017, each of which is the date of the judgment, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the plaintiff's creative consulting and defendant 2 shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and each claim against the plaintiff's YO system and defendant 4 shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning within the scope of the above recognition. Each claim against the above defendants against the above defendants shall be dismissed on the grounds of its merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 751(1) of the Civil Act provides for the liability for damages other than property due to a tort. Damage other than property does not mean only mental pain, but also includes intangible damage which can be assessed by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da53146, Oct. 9, 2008). The plaintiff is using the expression "climatium" but it is deemed that it means intangible damage.

2) The Plaintiff asserts that the rules of the Boeo Mando Subdivision are similar to, or subordinate to, the Plaintiff’s model rules of the Plaintiff’s branch, and therefore, it is not independent. However, as Boeo Mando Subdivision is incorporated into the Plaintiff’s branch, an industrial trade union, part of the rules are similar to, or are subject to, the Plaintiff’s model rules. It is natural to view that the rules are applied to those of the Plaintiff

3) Article 33(1) of the Constitution guarantees not only the right to organize of workers but also the right to organize of workers’ organizations themselves, namely, guaranteeing the existence, maintenance, development, and expansion, etc. of workers’ organizations from the public power (right to existence of an organization), and protecting the activities of workers’ organizations to maintain and improve working conditions, namely, collective bargaining, collective agreement conclusion, collective action, propaganda of an organization, and solicitation for joining an organization (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2012Hun-Ba16, Jul. 25, 2013).

4) 1. Why. Wy. 1. Shey. 1. Shey’s re-inward chiping to the Commonwealth 2. Constrused Unified 2.00,000 from from 100 kh.kh. Sheet to 100 meters from kr.knifed knife (Defendant 4’s part in part) to be filled)

5) The letter of head of 'Meetal Workers' refers to the plaintiff as a remote letter.

(6) On October 17, 2012, the Minister of Employment and Labor rendered a consultation to Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2 to support the conversion of the Plaintiff Boeo Mando Subdivision into a company-level trade union through structural change, and conducted advice in violation of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act. The Minister of Employment and Labor made a disposition to refuse to submit related contracts and meeting documents to investigate the violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act and made a disposition to “act in violation of the Certified Public Labor Attorney Act.” Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2 filed a revocation lawsuit against the Minister of Employment and Labor, and on the grounds that there were procedural defects in the disposition, the judgment of winning the Plaintiffs became final (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Nu30911, Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap611, Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013). The Minister of Employment and Labor revoked the registration of a certified public labor attorney on June 16, 2014, and the Seoul Administrative Court lost Nonparty 2014 (Seoul Administrative Court).