Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Law Firm C&P, Attorneys Kim Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

August 20, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the sentencing date, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

(i)The Act on the Restoration of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movements (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Democratization Movement") is enacted with the aim of promoting the stability of their lives and improving their welfare by promoting persons who have sacrificed in relation to democratization movements and their bereaved family members to restore their honor and compensate, and contributing to the development of democracy and national harmony. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Act provides that "divatization movements" means activities that, after March 24, 1964, disturbs the fundamental liberal democratic order and violates the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, contribute to the realization of the ideology and values pursuing the Constitution and the establishment of democratic constitutional order and the restoration and extension of the freedom and rights of the people, and the main sentence of subparagraph 2 provides that "divatization movement persons related to democratization movements" (hereinafter referred to as "related persons") shall be deemed to have agreed to receive compensation in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, together with the written consent of the Commission for the payment of compensation, and that an applicant shall be deemed to have agreed to receive such compensation in accordance with the Act:

Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Democratization Compensation Act provides that "where an applicant who has received a notice of decision on the payment of compensation or a written decision on the payment of living allowances or a written decision on the restoration of honor intends to receive compensation, etc., he/she shall submit to the Committee a written consent and a written request stating the following matters (attached Form 10), along with one copy of the written decision on the payment of compensation, written decision on the payment of living allowances or the original decision on the restoration of honor, and one copy of the applicant's certificate of personal seal impression," and subparagraph 3 of the above Enforcement Decree provides that "A consent to the decision on compensation and the claim for the payment of compensation, etc." (attached Form 10) provides that "A consent and a written request for the payment of compensation, etc.

In addition to the legislative intent of the Democratization Compensation Act, the contents of relevant regulations, the consent prepared and submitted by the applicant, and the contents of the written claim, the legislative purpose of Article 18(2) of the Democratization Compensation Act is to promptly terminate and implement it through the procedures for the decision of payment such as the compensation of the commission prior to the litigation and to grant stability to the decision of payment such as the compensation if the applicant consents to the decision of payment such as the compensation, in particular, by granting the effect of judicial compromise, such as the effect of res judicata; and in addition, if the applicant consents to the decision of payment such as the compensation of the commission, the applicant shall be deemed to have the same effect as a judicial compromise under the Civil Procedure Act as to all the damage arising in relation to the democratization movement for which the compensation, etc. was paid, including the consolation money, pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Democratization Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da

살피건대, 갑 1호증(가지번호 포함)의 기재, 이 법원의 민주화운동관련자명예회복및보상심의위원회(이하 ‘보상심의위원회’라 한다)에 대한 사실조회 결과 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 원고들은 ① 1977. 1. ■■■■■■■의 자문을 받아 당시 회사 간부들의 생산직 근로자들에 대한 잦은 사내 폭행사건에 대해 항의하고, ② 1978. 3. △△△△ 사측에서 지부장을 선임하는 등 유명무실하던 노동조합을 ■■■■■■■원이 주축이 되어 열악한 노동조건의 개선과 노동기본권 확립을 위한 민주노동조합을 결성하는 과정에 참여하여 조합원으로 활동하고, ③ 1979. 소위 ‘YH사건’ 이후 강화된 노동운동 탄압에 항의하고, 1980. ‘유해작업환경개선’, ‘야근수당 지급’ 등의 근로조건 개선요구를 전개한 것을 이유로 원고 1, 원고 2, 원고 3, 원고 6, 원고 7의 경우 각 1980. 12. 22., 원고 4의 경우 1980. 12. 12., 원고 5, 원고 8의 경우 각 1980. 12. 23. 각 소외 △△△△ 주식회사에서 해직된 사실, 원고들은 위 해직과 관련하여 2009. 12. 2. 보상심의위원회의 민주화운동관련자인정결정을 받은 사실, 원고 원고 1, 원고 2, 원고 5, 원고 6, 원고 7, 원고 8은 각 2009. 12. 18., 원고 3은 2009. 12. 17., 원고 4는 2009. 12. 28. 각 생활지원금지급신청을 하면서 ‘신청인은 그 생활지원금을 받은 때에는 그 사건에 대하여 화해 계약하는 것이며, 그 사건에 관하여 어떠한 방법으로라도 다시 청구하지 아니할 것임을 서약합니다.’라는 취지의 동의서를 작성ㆍ제출한 사실, 원고들은 생활지원금으로 각 50,000,000원씩을 지급받은 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 위 인정사실에 의하면 생활지원금 수령에 의해 원고들에게는 원고들의 해직과 관련하여 입은 피해 일체(적극적 재산손해, 소극적 재산손해, 정신적 손해 불문)에 대하여 재판상 화해와 동일한 효력이 발생한다고 봄이 상당하다.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)