1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Defendant’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since it is in violation of the subordinate arrangement concluded between the metal industry users’ council to which the Plaintiff belonged (hereinafter “user’s council”) and the Korean Metal Trade Union to which the Defendants belonged (hereinafter “metallic Trade Union”).

B. Determination 1) Determination 1) An agreement to bring about an action is valid as to the circumstances anticipated at the time of the agreement, such as the waiver of the right to trial guaranteed under the Constitution, and where there is any disagreement regarding the validity or scope thereof, it shall be determined after reasonably interpreting the parties’ intentions (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the entirety purport of the statements and arguments in Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 1 and No. 7 should be determined by the employer council and metal labor union on July 6, 2004, stating that “the metal labor union-related user did not take part or provisional seizure on the ground of its trade union activity,” and the agreement has continued to exist after that agreement, and Article 14 of the metal industry-related agreement on September 6, 2011 provides that all the parties to the lawsuit shall not be deemed to have agreed on the ground of the following circumstances: