The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 24 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (hereinafter “Trade Union Act”), an employee who is engaged exclusively in the affairs of a trade union (hereinafter “labor union ex officio”) shall not receive any benefits from the employer during the period of said full-time, notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (2), a worker designated as eligible for the exemption of working hours (hereinafter “workers exempted from working hours”) may, without any loss of wages, engage in the maintenance and management of a trade union for certain business affairs, such as negotiations with the employer, settlement of grievances, and industrial safety activities, and for the sound development of labor-management relations without any loss of wages, to the extent not exceeding the limit of

(4) In order to ensure the independence of a trade union by preventing a trade union from dependent economicly on an employer, the legislative purpose of the above provision is to continuously guarantee the trade union's activities within a certain scope of time-off in consideration of the net function of the labor union's system, instead of prohibiting a trade union from providing wages for full-time union workers.

( Constitutional Court Decision 2010Hun-Ma606 Decided May 29, 2014). Article 81 of the Trade Union Act regulating an employer’s unfair labor practice prohibits “act of controlling or participating in the organization or operation of a trade union by workers or providing wages to full-time workers or assisting the operation expenses of a trade union” in the main sentence of subparagraph 4, reflecting such content, from engaging in unfair labor practice. However, in the proviso, “act of allowing a person exempt from working hours to engage in an activity under Article 24(4) of the Trade Union Act during working hours” does not constitute unfair labor practice.

Therefore, the act of supporting wages to workers who were not designated as the time-off worker merely because of the fact that they were the time-off worker.