[1] The case holding that the dismissed worker has the right to seek prohibition from entering the employer's headquarters and its branch after the dismissal of the dismissed worker does not constitute an unfair labor practice, as it interferes with the normal performance of duties of other workers, causes serious and obvious danger to the employer's right to manage the facilities, and thus, the employer has the right to seek prohibition from entering the dismissed worker's headquarters and branch office

[2] Limits on "support" under Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[3] In a case where workers who were dismissed while leading illegal farming in the company's place of business were appointed as executives of the trade union at the company's headquarters or branch, and enter the employer's headquarters or branch, prevented employers from attending work by force, and led illegal strike by inciting the unionlight, the case holding that the workers' act is unlawful by exceeding the purport of Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] The case holding that the employer has the right to seek prohibition from entering the employer's headquarters and its branch office from the time when the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a review decision that the dismissal of the employer does not constitute unfair labor practice, on the ground that the employer's act of working in the union is deemed to have been lost under subparagraph 4 (d) of Article 2 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, such as participating in the union operation to prevent the employer from working at work by force, to instigate the union members, thereby hindering other workers' normal performance of duties, and causing significant and obvious risks to the right to manage the employer's facilities, and thus, the employer has the right to seek prohibition from entering the employer's headquarters and branch

[2] Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "a trade union and an employer may receive assistance from an industrial associated organization or a union federation which has joined the trade union in relation to collective bargaining or industrial action, or from a person who has reported to the relevant administrative agency in order to receive assistance from the said trade union or the relevant employer." Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "a trade union which is a union or an industrial associated organization may cooperate, support, or guide with respect to the activities of the trade union that has joined the relevant trade union." However, the methods of assistance, etc. in this case shall remain in an auxiliary act such as consultation, advice, etc. which does not infringe on the autonomous decision-making of the parties in the labor relationship, and further, it shall not be permitted to lead collective bargaining or industrial action or to instigate, operate,

[3] In a case where workers who were dismissed while leading illegal farming in the company's place of business were appointed as executives of the trade union at the company's headquarters or branch, and enter the employer's headquarters or branch, prevented employers from attending work by force, and led illegal strike by inciting the unionlight, the case holding that the workers' act is illegal beyond the purport of Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act and Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [2] Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Decree

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Debtor 1 and four others (Attorney Lee Dong-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. No debtor shall enter each real estate listed in the separate sheet on the condition that the creditor deposits 20 million won as a guarantee or submits a document concluding a payment guarantee entrustment contract with the same amount as the insurance amount;

2. The execution officer shall publicly announce the purport of the said order in the proper manner.

3. The remaining claims against the creditors are dismissed.

4. 50% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the obligee, and the remainder by the obligor, respectively.

1. The debtors shall not have access to each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

2. The execution officer shall publicly announce the purport of the said order in the proper manner.

3. The debtors who violate the order under paragraph (1) shall pay to the creditors one hundred won per time of the violation jointly and severally.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case, the following facts are recognized:

A. The creditor is a juristic person established for the purpose of the registration and inspection of a ship, the deliberation of drawings of ships and various equipment, and supervision of manufacture, land and sea structures, and the inspection and supervision of industrial plant equipment, and all of the debtors are employees belonging to the creditor and dismissed from the creditor on April 7, 2005.

B. On September 15, 2005, the debtor 1 was sentenced to a fine of two million won for negligence, the debtor 2, the debtor 2, the secretary general, the debtor 4, the debtor 5, the debtor 5, the head of the organization division, the debtor 5, the head of the law division, the debtor 1 was sentenced to a fine of two million won for negligence, the debtor 2, 3, 4, and 5, each of the fines of one million won for negligence, on the ground that he prevented the creditor from attending work at the home, the creditor's chairperson, in front of the creditor's sentiments, and interfered with the creditor's physical fighting with the creditor's officers.

C. On April 6, 2005, the obligee led illegal farming, distorted and distorted the company’s business activities by pointing out false facts or facts outside and outside of the country, prevented the Chairperson from working without permission, led employees to leave their work at a collective workplace, and was held by the personnel committee on the ground that the obligee violated the rules of employment and personnel management, such as insulting the president and the managerial layer, and dismissed the obligor on the seventh day of the same month.

D. On June 30, 2005, the obligor, who received the above dismissal order, filed an application for remedy with the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission for unfair labor practices and unfair dismissal, and the Chungcheong Regional Labor Relations Commission decided on June 30, 2005 that the above dismissal order constitutes unfair dismissal, but the obligor, who received the above dismissal order, filed a petition for review decision with the National Labor Relations Commission on February 15, 2006, and the National Labor Relations Commission cannot be deemed to have abused its discretionary power to take disciplinary action against the obligor on February 15, 2006, and dismissed the obligor’s application for remedy order.

E. However, on March 6, 2006, after the decision of the above National Labor Relations Commission, the debtor 1 was appointed on March 6, 2006 by the director of the National Science and Technology Trade Union; the debtor 4; the director of the cultural division; the debtor 2; the director of the collective bargaining department; the debtor 3; and the debtor 5, respectively; they prevented creditors from attending the office by force upon entering the headquarters or some of the headquarters listed in the creditor’s attached list; and instigate labor union members to promote the productivity of illegal strike.

2. Determination:

On the other hand, as acknowledged above, since the National Labor Relations Commission decided that the dismissal of the creditor of the National Labor Relations Commission does not constitute unfair labor practice, the debtor lost the creditor's status pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 4 (d) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, it shall be deemed that he participated in the labor union activity and prevented the creditor from attending work by force against the chairperson of the union, thereby hindering the creditor's normal performance of duties and causing significant and obvious risks to the creditor's right to manage the union and thus the creditor shall have the right to seek a prohibition of the creditor's entry into the headquarters and branch of the whole in order to protect his own property rights and maintain business order within the company (However, the claim in paragraph (3) of the purport of the application is difficult to calculate the pertinent amount of compensation by issuing an order under Article 261 of the Civil Execution Act, and this part of the claim shall not be accepted).

3. Determination of the debtor's assertion

A. Summary of the debtor's assertion

The debtors asserts that even if they lost their status as workers of creditors, the political director of the National Science and Technology Trade Union; the debtor 1; the debtor 4; the debtor 2; the collective bargaining director; the debtor 3; the investigation and statistics director; and the debtor 5 are appointed as the head of the Ministry of Education and the executive officers of the industrial-level trade union; therefore, entry into the branch or workplace under their control shall be allowed for the right to organize of the industrial-level trade union members and the establishment of the branch or branch members.

(b) Markets:

Article 40(1) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act provides that "a trade union and an employer may receive assistance from an industrial associated organization or a union federation in relation to collective bargaining or industrial action in which the trade union has joined, or from a person who has reported to an administrative agency in order to receive assistance from the trade union or the employer concerned." Article 8(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "a trade union which is a union or an industrial associated organization may cooperate, support, or guide with the activities of the trade union which has joined the trade union in question." However, the method of assistance, etc. in this case shall remain in an auxiliary act, such as consultation, advice, etc. which does not infringe on the autonomous decision-making of the parties in labor relations. Furthermore, collective bargaining or industrial action is not permitted by the purport of the above provision.

Therefore, as seen earlier, it is obvious that the obligor’s forced entry to the obligee’s headquarters or part of the branch, and forced entry to the obligee’s headquarters and part of the branch, prevented the obligee from attending the work of officer such as the president, etc., and led illegal strike and farming by inciting union members is unlawful beyond the purport of the above provision. Thus, even if the obligor is an executive member of the company belonging to the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the motion of this case against the obligor is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] : omitted from the list of real estate

Judges Cho Ji-hee (Presiding Judge)