The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendant’s corrective order was lawful on the ground that the part of the support for office maintenance expenses, vehicles and oil expenses exceeding the provision of office expenses and office expenses, management expenses and oil expenses in the facility convenience clause of the instant collective agreement and separate agreement with the instant collective agreement is unlawful, on the ground that it constitutes an act of assisting operation expenses corresponding to unfair labor practices as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union Act (hereinafter “Trade Act”).

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the act of assistance in operating expenses prohibited

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different cases and are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The restriction of the term of validity of a collective agreement to a maximum of two years under Article 32(1) and (2) of the Trade Union Act means that the restriction of the term of validity of a collective agreement goes against the purpose of maintaining appropriate working conditions and promoting stability in labor-management relations through a collective agreement, so it would go against the purpose of maintaining appropriate working conditions through the collective agreement, so it would go against the conclusion that the term of validity of the collective agreement is too long as it does not adapt to changes in social and economic conditions, and thus, would go against the purpose of unfairly binding the parties. Therefore,

In addition, the proviso of Article 32(3) of the Trade Union Act provides that if a collective agreement has not been concluded even after the expiration of the term of validity, the former collective agreement shall remain in force until the conclusion of the new collective agreement.