See Attached Table 1 of the Plaintiffs (Law Firm Hun-Ba, Attorney Shin Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kti Trade Union and two others (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 20, 2015

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap35452 Decided May 15, 2015

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs in attached Form 2 are dismissed the claims added by the appellate court.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants, and the costs of the lawsuit additionally arising from the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs listed in attached Form 2

1. Purport of claim

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable,

(1) With respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 2,00,000 and each of the above amounts to the plaintiffs other than the plaintiffs listed in attached Form 2, 20% interest per annum from the day after the last copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of full payment; and

(2) With respect to each of the money listed in the “total amount of claim” in the separate sheet No. 2 and each of the money stated in the “amount of claim of the court of first instance” as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the last copy of the complaint of this case is served, and with respect to each money stated in the “additional amount of claim of the court of first instance” as stated in the separate sheet No. 2,

B. We affirm that the labor-management agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, which was formulated on April 8, 2014 by the Defendant Kti labor union, is invalid in both the labor-management agreement for business rationalization, the special honorary retirement implementation agreement and the labor-management agreement for welfare revision, and the labor-management agreement for wage extension on February 24, 2015.

[Attachment 2] The Plaintiffs added at an appellate court a claim for property damage (attached Form 2 “additional Claim for Appeal”) through a supplementary appeal filed on July 17, 2015.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed in entirety.

3. Scope of trial in the appellate trial

As stated in the above purport of this claim, the plaintiffs filed a claim seeking the confirmation of invalidity of monetary payment and monetary payment. The court of first instance dismissed the claim for confirmation of invalidity, and partly accepted the claim part of the monetary payment. Since only the defendants appealed, the part of the claim for confirmation of invalidity is not included in the scope of the appellate trial.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

1) The Defendant KT trade union (hereinafter “Defendant trade union”) is a trade union registered as a legal entity with employees belonging to the KT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) as its members, and Defendant 2 is the chairperson of the said trade union, and Defendant 3 is the head of the business support office.

2) The Plaintiffs were the members of the Defendant trade union as the case workers, and were the members of the Defendant trade union, and they were voluntarily retired or transferred to the Work Support CFT department (the Plaintiffs, once 158 to 226) pursuant to a series of measures taken after the first labor-management agreement, as seen in the following b).

B. Conclusion of each labor-management agreement of this case

1) On April 8, 2014, the Defendant trade union entered into a labor-management agreement with the following contents (hereinafter “the first labor-management agreement”). In this case, the Defendant trade union did not hold a general meeting or hear the opinions of its members in advance regarding the first labor-management agreement.

본문내 포함된 표 ▣ (사업합리화) 노사합의서 주식회사 케이티와 피고 노동조합은 회사의 경영효율화를 위한 사업합리화 계획을 협의하고 아래와 같이 합의한다. ○ 회사의 사업합리화 계획에 의거 Mass영업·개통/AS·Plaza 분야 업무를 폐지한다. 단, 회사 경영상황에 따라 축소 운영할 수 있다. ○ 사업합리화 조치에 따라 해당 분야 잔류자에 대해서는 직무전환 교육 후 접점지역으로 재배치한다. 단, 세부기준은 별도 합의 시행한다. ○ 인사규정상의 사무/기술직렬은 일반직렬로 통합한다. ▣ (특별명예퇴직) 노사합의서 주식회사 케이티와 피고 노동조합은 종사원의 요구를 반영하고 직원들의 새로운 인생기회를 부여하기 위해 특별명예퇴직을 아래와 같이 시행하기로 합의한다. ○ 특별명예퇴직을 2014. 4. 30.자로 시행한다. - 특별명예퇴직은 근속 15년 이상인 직원을 대상으로 하되, 정년 잔여기간이 1년 미만인 자는 제외한다. - 특별명예퇴직 유형은 퇴직형과 재취업형 2가지로 하며, 직원들이 자유롭게 선택할 수 있도록 한다. - 퇴직희망자가 재취업형을 선택하는 경우 직무연관성을 고려하여 2년간의 그룹사 취업을 알선한다. ○ 정기명예퇴직 제도는 2014. 5. 1.자로 폐지한다. 단, 2014년 1분기 명예퇴직자는 금번 특별명예퇴직 조건에 준하여 적용한다. ○ 임금피크제는 2015. 1. 1.자로 도입한다. 단, 적용연령 및 감액율 등 세부기준은 추후 합의 시행한다. ▣ (복지제도변경) 노사합의서 주식회사 케이티와 피고 노동조합은 어려운 경영현실을 감안하고 회사와 직원의 상생을 위해 복지제도를 아래와 같이 변경하여 시행하기로 합의한다. ○ 대학생 자녀학자금 지원/대부제도 및 본인학자금 지원제도를 2014. 6. 1.자로 폐지한다. ○ 중학교 학자금 지원제도를 폐지하며, (구)kt/ktf 이원 운영중이던 고등학교 학자금 지원제도는 kt 기준으로 통합한다. ○ 공통포인트(160만 포인트)를 130만 포인트로 조정하고, 인재육성포인트 및 교육보조비는 폐지한다. ○ 변동포인트를 신설하여 전년도 영업이익과 개인성과평가 결과에 따라 차등 지급한다. (이하 생략)

2) On April 8, 2014, based on the first labor-management agreement related to the implementation of special voluntary retirement, the case publicly announced a special voluntary retirement implementation plan for employees with the actual employment period of at least 15 years. At that time, according to the measures for business rationalization, etc., the case took measures for the relocation of the branch office throughout the country, and transferred the number of employees not placed to the regional headquarters or to the CFT department newly established at the time, by reflecting personnel situation and other factors.

3) Meanwhile, on February 24, 2015, when the instant lawsuit is pending, the Defendant trade union concluded a labor-management agreement on the specific implementation plan, such as the case and the extension of retirement age and the wage peak system (hereinafter “the second labor-management agreement,” and the “each of the instant labor-management agreements” collectively with the first labor-management agreement). The Defendant trade union did not seek opinions from its members in advance at the time of the second labor-management agreement, like the first labor-management agreement at the time of the second labor-management agreement.

C. Relevant provisions

본문내 포함된 표 ▣ 노동조합 및 노동관계조정법(이하 ‘노동조합법’이라 한다) 제16조(총회의 의결사항) ① 다음 각 호의 사항은 총회의 의결을 거쳐야 한다. 3. 단체협약 제22조(조합원의 권리와 의무) 노동조합의 조합원은 균등하게 그 노동조합의 모든 문제에 참여할 권리와 의무를 가진다. 다만, 노동조합은 그 규약으로 조합비를 납부하지 아니하는 조합원의 권리를 제한할 수 있다. ▣ 규약(이하 ‘이 사건 규약’이라 한다) 제10조(조합원의 권리) 조합원은 본 규약에 따른 동등한 권리를 가진다. 단, 규약에 의하지 아니하고는 권리를 제한받지 않으며, 징계를 받은 조합원에 대해서는 규정으로 정하는 바에 따라 권리를 제한할 수 있다. ① 조합원은 다음과 같은 권리를 갖는다. 1. 조합의 활동에 동등하게 참여할 권리 3. 조합운영에 동등한 발언권 및 의결권 6. 기타 조합원으로 권익을 보호받을 권리 제21조(의결사항) 조합원 총회의 의결사항은 다음 각 호와 같다. 4. 임금협약 및 단체협약 체결에 관한 사항 제61조(단체교섭) ① 본 조합은 단체교섭의 당사자이며, 본 조합이 교섭대표 노조가 되는 경우 위원장은 단체교섭 및 체결권은 있으나 조합원 총회의 의결을 거친 후 체결하여야 한다. 제73조(조합원 징계) 본 조합의 임원, 산하조직의 임원, 조합간부 및 조합원이 다음 각 호에 해당하는 경우 소정의 절차에 따라 징계한다. 1. 규약을 위반한 자

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 9, 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) All of the plaintiffs

The Defendants, even though the contents of each labor-management agreement of this case were matters that have a significant impact on working conditions, such as issuing a transfer order under the rationalization of business, implementing special honorary retirement, and reducing the welfare system, the Defendants did not go through the general assembly procedure for union members to collect opinions in violation of Articles 16 and 22 of the Trade Union Act and Articles 10 and 21 of the Rules of this case, which guaranteed the democratic participation of union members during the process of concluding the collective agreement. In addition, the Defendants violated Article 103 of the Civil Act by engaging in legal acts that go against the concept of justice by withdrawing working conditions through the termination of the labor-management agreement as a result of the labor-management agreement in the confidential room, thereby violating Article 103 of the Civil Act.

As a result, the working conditions of the members of the defendant trade union, including the plaintiffs, were seriously damaged, and the procedural rights of the members have been infringed, so the defendants, as joint tortfeasor pursuant to Article 760 of the Civil Code, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs for mental damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the respective labor-management agreements of this case (such as reduction of school expenses and decline in the level of wages due to the enforcement of wage reduction system, property damage that is anticipated to naturally occur due to the respective labor-management agreements

2) Attached Form 2 to the Plaintiffs

According to the conclusion of the first labor-management agreement between the Defendants and the case in the smuggling room without the members’ general meeting resolution, the Plaintiffs, as stated in attached Form 2, suffered damages from receiving school expenses for the children of the undergraduate students who had been paid, so the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, should compensate for property damages suffered by the above Plaintiffs pursuant to the first labor-management agreement.

B. The defendants' assertion

1) As in the instant labor-management agreement, the legal nature of the labor-management agreement that regularly enters into is different from that of the collective agreement that regularly enters into between the labor and the management. In such a case, demanding the general meeting of the union members pursuant to the Trade Union Act and the instant regulations would result in the de facto and comprehensive restriction of the union chairperson’s power to conclude the collective agreement. Therefore, in the case of the labor-management agreement that is regularly entered into, it is unnecessary to undergo the general meeting of the union members. Therefore, the Defendants do not constitute tort liability for the violation

2) In addition, in the case of a labor-management agreement that is regularly conducted as the labor-management agreement in the instant case, the Defendant trade union has concluded the labor-management agreement with the case without the resolution of the general meeting of the union members. Thus, even if the labor-management agreement in the instant case should undergo the general meeting of the union members, the Defendants do not have intention or negligence for the illegal act, and in the case of a labor-management agreement that is regularly conducted, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have

3) Furthermore, the Defendants did not infringe the procedural right to participate in the process of forming the intent of the Plaintiffs, since they sufficiently undergo the procedures for gathering opinions within the labor union in concluding each labor-management agreement of this case.

4) Meanwhile, in relation to the plaintiffs' claim for damages on their property, there is no proximate causal relation between the defendants' procedural violation and the damages that the above plaintiffs did not receive school expenses, and thus, the above plaintiffs' claim for damages on their property is unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim for mental compensation

1) Occurrence of damages liability

A) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs seek compensation for the damages of this case from the “mental suffering caused by the infringement of procedural rights, such as the reduction of working conditions due to the conclusion of each labor-management agreement of this case in a confidential room or the reduction of welfare system such as special retirement or school expenses, etc.”

B) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 29(1) of the Trade Union Act, the representative of a trade union has the authority to negotiate and conclude a collective agreement with an employer or employers’ association for the trade union or union members, and the total and comprehensive restriction of such representative’s authority to conclude a collective agreement violates Article 29(1) of the Trade Union Act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Nu1257, Apr. 27, 1993, etc.).

However, in light of the fact that a collective agreement has a normative effect to directly decide on the working conditions and other criteria for the treatment of each member of a trade union, the actual subject of the collective agreement is an employee, and therefore, collective agreement is the basic request for collective bargaining to be concluded based on the intent of the trade union formed by the members participating in the collective agreement. Article 16(1)3 of the Trade Union Act provides that matters concerning collective agreement shall be determined as a resolution by the general meeting and the representative of the trade union may prepare a proposal for bargaining through the general meeting before the commencement of collective bargaining or collect the total amount of union members continuously in the course of collective bargaining, it shall be permissible to limit the exercise of the power to conclude the collective agreement to the extent that the trade union is not subject to the complete and comprehensive restriction on the authority to conclude the collective agreement, such as reflecting the intentions of the union members and requiring the internal procedures in order to control the performance of the affairs of collective bargaining and conclusion of the collective agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da24534, Apr.

In addition, if the representative of a trade union entered into a collective agreement with an employer without going through any internal procedure prepared to hold and reflect the will of the union members as above, such representative’s act constitutes a tort infringing the procedural rights of the union members who can participate in the process of forming the intention of the trade union, barring special circumstances.

C) Determination

The instant rules provide for matters concerning the conclusion of collective agreements at the general meeting of union members (Article 21 subparag. 4), and that a representative of a trade union shall conclude a collective agreement after undergoing a resolution at the general meeting of union members (Article 61(1)). According to the foregoing, the representative of the Defendant trade union may conduct collective bargaining after gathering opinions from union members through a resolution at the general meeting of union members and reflecting his/her opinion, and may undergo a resolution at the general meeting until reaching the actual agreement with the employer even in the course of conducting collective bargaining. Unlike the foregoing rules, it does not mean that the said provisions are limited to the extent that a collective agreement can be concluded only after undergoing a resolution at the general meeting of union members with regard to whether to place a collective agreement on the draft agreement, before signing the collective agreement after the representative of the trade union agreed on the contents of the collective agreement with the employer. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Article 21 and Article 61 of the instant rules are comprehensively and comprehensively restricted to the power to conclude the collective agreement of union representatives (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du15404, Sept. 27, 20

Therefore, Article 21 of the Rules of this case is valid as a procedural limitation on the exercise of the representative’s authority to conclude the collective agreement for the purpose of reflecting the intent of the union members when concluding the collective agreement and for the proper control over the affairs to conclude the collective agreement by the representative of the trade union. Nevertheless, Defendant 2, the representative of the defendant trade union, entered into each of the labor-management agreements of this case without gathering the opinions of the union members through the resolution of the general meeting (this case’s labor-management agreements signed by Defendant 3 on behalf of Defendant 2). As such, Defendant 3, the head of the business support office, signed each of the labor-management agreements of this case on behalf of the union members, committed tort infringing the procedural rights of the union members who

D) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

(1) The Defendants asserted that the labor-management agreement of this case is concluded on a regular basis with regard to individual matters, and it should be distinguished from the collective agreement that is concluded on a regular basis, and that the relevant provisions of the labor-management agreement do not apply to the labor-management agreement that is concluded on a regular basis, prior to the conclusion of the collective agreement.

A collective agreement is established by preparing in writing an agreement on working conditions and other matters arising from the labor-management relations with an employer or employers’ association, and both parties thereto shall sign and seal the agreement (agreement). It does not necessarily require that agreement should be made by undergoing regular collective bargaining procedures. Therefore, even if an agreement on working conditions and other labor-management relations between a trade union and an employer was concluded after consultation with the labor-management council, if both parties to the agreement were to be written in writing to make it a collective agreement and the representatives of both parties to the agreement on behalf of each trade union and the employer, etc. meet the substantive and formal requirements of the collective agreement, such agreement shall be deemed to be a collective agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27429, Mar. 11,

In addition to the above legal principles, it is not easy to distinguish between the labor-management agreement that is regularly concluded and the regular collective agreement, and even according to the agreement of this case established by the Defendant Labor Union, it does not distinguish the labor-management agreement that is regularly made with the collective agreement, and even if the name of the collective agreement is not used, it is reasonable to view all of the labor-management agreement as a collective agreement under the Trade Union Act if it satisfies the practical and formal requirements under the labor-management agreement. In light of the above, each of the labor-management agreements of this case also constitutes a collective agreement that requires the resolution of the general meeting of union members in Article 16 of the

(2) Next, the Defendants asserted that, in the case of a collective agreement that is regularly concluded as stipulated in the respective labor-management agreement of this case, the parties have the practices of concluding the agreement without the resolution of the general meeting of the union members, unlike regular collective agreement, there is a union members’ implied right to enter into the agreement ex officio, as well as the parties’ intentional or negligent right to enter into the agreement on the violation of the regulations.

In full view of the respective statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 26, 27, 28, and Eul evidence 15 and the overall purport of arguments, in the case of a collective agreement, unlike a regular collective agreement to be entered into every year or every other year, which was concluded from time to time with respect to a specific pending issue, the defendant trade union exceptionally entered into a collective agreement with the general meeting of the union members, but instead, it did not go through the resolution of the general meeting of the union members, but it seems that the members and cases were also at issue or did not express any doubts about the procedural appropriateness.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and evidence evidence Nos. 10 and 13, and the purport of the entire arguments, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ intention or negligence is not recognized as to the failure of the resolution of the general meeting in entering into the labor-management agreement of this case, and there is no implied authorization of each of the labor-management agreements of this case. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① Each labor-management agreement of this case includes a majority of the matters that have a significant impact on the labor conditions of the union members, such as the merger of branches, conversion of placement, enforcement of special honorary retirement and wage peak system, and reduction and abolition of various welfare systems, and its importance is not less than the regular collective agreement. Therefore, Defendant 2 and other labor-management agreements of this case concluded each labor-management agreement of this case with no effort to strengthen procedural democracy in the process of concluding each labor-management agreement of this case.

② If a labor-management agreement that takes place on a regular basis does not constitute a tort even if it does not undergo a resolution at the general meeting of the union members, the labor union’s leading division may lead to a tendency to process the important matters to be determined by the regular collective agreement as a simple and regular labor-management agreement. This is contrary to the purport of Article 21 of the instant agreement, etc., which reflects the intent of the union members and limits the exercise of the representative’s authority to conclude the collective agreement in a procedural manner for the appropriate control over the affairs, etc.

③ As to the fact that the Defendant Union’s guidance division did not follow the procedures for gathering opinions from the members through the general assembly, etc. while entering into each labor-management agreement of the instant case, there is no circumstance to deem that it is impossible to undergo such procedures (the Defendant asserted that it is impossible for the Defendant to share the contents by holding a general meeting since it agreed to keep the contents of the meeting closed with the case. However, it is not impossible for the Defendant Union’s instruction division to gather opinions from the members of the association on specific pending issues on the ground that the parties to the non-disclosure of the contents of the meeting were the Defendant Union guidance division

④ In particular, the second labor-management agreement was concluded after the procedural problems of the first labor-management agreement were raised through the lawsuit in this case. The labor-management agreement was enforced by the Defendant labor union’s leading division under the circumstances where more active review is required on the procedural defects such as violation of the rules and the liability arising therefrom. In addition, on October 22, 2014 after the first labor-management agreement, one of the members of the labor-management agreement was asked about whether to enforce the wage peak system from the date of the labor-management agreement, and the Defendant labor union’s homepage manager posted a notice to the effect that “the last plan to determine the labor-management agreement through the general meeting of the union members becomes final and conclusive through sufficient discussions with the company side,” and then the relevant article was deleted by the Defendant labor union.

⑤ Article 16 of the Trade Union Act and Article 21 of the Rules of this case, etc., of the same Act, are interpreted as the provisions that guarantee an opportunity for union members to participate directly in the process of forming an internal intent of a cooperative, regardless of the contents or result of the matters to be finally decided at a general meeting of union members. Therefore, even if a collective agreement was concluded on a specific pending issue at a regular time without the resolution of the general meeting of union members, even if it had been concluded with K and a collective agreement with K without undergoing the resolution of the general meeting of union members, if the agreement had a significant impact on the union’s working conditions, as the contents of each labor-management agreement of this case, and there was a voice for union members to undergo a resolution at the general meeting of union members, the Defendant trade union’s leader

(3) Next, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants did not infringe the Plaintiffs’ right to participate in the process of forming the intent of the Plaintiff’s association, even if they did not enter into each labor-management agreement in the instant case, through the process of gathering opinions through the labor-management council, the National Organization Director-General, the Central Committee, and its affiliated organization representatives, and the extension and extension meetings. However, the aforementioned procedure of gathering opinions asserted by the Defendants is merely a subject matter of a large number of executives, and it cannot be deemed as having gone through the process of collecting the intent of the members. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion

2) Subject of damages

A) Defendant 2, the representative of the Defendant trade union, has the authority to conclude each of the labor-management agreements of this case, and is primarily liable for damages to the Plaintiffs due to unlawful acts such as violation of the instant agreement.

B) Furthermore, the Defendant trade union is also liable for damages. Defendant 2, as the representative of the Defendant trade union, committed an illegal act excluding the Plaintiffs from the participation in the decision-making process with respect to the conclusion of each of the instant labor-management agreements. As such, Defendant trade union, which is a corporate, is also liable for damages incurred by Defendant 2 to the members of the other party in connection with its duties pursuant to Article 35(1)1 of the Civil Act.

C) In addition, we examine whether Defendant 3 is liable for damages even to Defendant 3. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the above evidence, Defendant 3 was the head of the business support office at the time of the conclusion of each labor-management agreement in this case. According to Article 52 of the Rules of this case, the head of the business support office determines that the labor-management bargaining and external cooperation are in charge, and Defendant 3 actively participated in the process of concluding each labor-management agreement in this case on behalf of Defendant 2, the chairman of the business support office, and the fact that Defendant 3 signed each labor-management agreement in this case on behalf of the chairman of the labor-management agreement in this case. Accordingly, according to the above facts, Defendant 3 is aware

3) Scope of damages

The following circumstances are considered: (a) the process of concluding each labor-management agreement in this case; (b) the details of the labor-management agreement in this case; (c) the details of the labor-management agreement in this case; (d) the labor-management agreement in which the labor-management agreement was concluded on a non-regular basis; (e) the labor-management agreement was formulated without the resolution of the general meeting of the union members; (e) the labor-management agreement was replaced by the labor-management agreement; and (e) the labor-management agreement was elected as the re-chairperson with the consent of 71.47% from among the union members who participated in the voting; and (e) the anticipated labor-management agreement was concluded when the procedures prescribed in this case were followed; (e) the importance of the procedural violation of the labor-management agreement in this case; and (e) the degree of infringement of the procedural rights of the union members (in particular, there is no room for additional infringement of the labor-management agreement in the list of the plaintiffs 1).

B. Determination as to the plaintiffs' property damage claim in attached Form 2

1) The above plaintiffs asserted that the above plaintiffs should compensate the above plaintiffs for damages caused to their property as joint tortfeasor, since they suffered damages that are not paid school expenses to their children who had been paid in accordance with the first labor-management agreement that was illegally concluded by the defendants.

2) However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and evidence revealed by comprehensively taking account of the respective statements and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the entire arguments, it cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relationship between the violation of the procedure that occurred in the process of concluding the respective labor-management agreement in the instant case and the Plaintiffs’ property damages due to the said first labor-management agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiffs

① In concluding the first labor-management agreement, the Defendants were found to have failed to go through the procedures stipulated in the instant agreement, but it is necessary to pay attention to denying the validity of the collective agreement itself by fault without going through the above internal procedures. Unlike regular collective agreements, the Defendant trade union concluded a labor-management agreement with the company without a general meeting resolution in the case of regular pending issues, and it seems to have not been particularly problematic inside the union or the case. The contents of each of the instant labor-management agreement do not seem to be unreasonable or unreasonable as a policy decision taking into account not only the management indicators at the time of the company, such as case sales or operating profits, but also the prospects of future main businesses, and it is difficult for Defendant 2 to deny the validity of each of the instant labor-management agreement, despite the fact that the chairperson of the Defendant trade union, which was implemented around November 2014, which was after the first labor-management agreement was concluded, due to the Defendants’ violation of the procedures of each of the instant labor-management agreement.

② In addition, considering the circumstances where the guidance division of the Defendant trade union was supported by the majority of the union members at the time of the first labor-management agreement, even if the guidance division of the Defendant trade union was conducted with the case through the resolution of the general meeting of the union members, it is difficult to readily conclude that each of the labor-management agreements of this case

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 300,000 won per annum from July 16, 2014, which is the following day after the copy of the complaint in this case was finally served on the Defendants, to the Plaintiffs, and 200,000 won per annum from July 16, 2014 to May 15, 2015, which is the date of the judgment of the first instance, as determined by the Civil Act, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion, the defendants' appeals and the plaintiffs' claims for additional property damages in the appellate court as stated in the attached Table 2 are dismissed as all of the grounds are without merit. It is so decided as per

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Kim Dae-ro (Presiding Judge)

(1) A corporation is liable to compensate for damages inflicted on another person in connection with its duties by a director or any other representative. A director or any other representative shall not be relieved of liability for damages arising therefrom.