[Plaintiff, Appellant] Youngdong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Litigation Representatives Attorney Lee Young-su and 1 other
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
[Intervenor for Defendant]
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment 89Gu3405, rendered May 24, 1990
[Order]
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
[Reasoning] As to Ground of Appeal No. (1):
The court below, upon comprehensive consideration of the evidence presented, found the following facts: on July 18, 1988, Non-party ○○○, the head of the Trade Department of the Plaintiff company, and Non-party ○○○, the head of the Planning Office, persuaded the Intervenors for Defendant to dissolve the labor union, but were refused; the following day, the representative director convened employees of the head office holding positions of assistant manager or higher in a conference room and, while indirectly criticizing the establishment of the labor union, urged its dissolution; and nevertheless, as the number of union members increased, the Plaintiff company convened a personnel management committee at approximately 20:00 on the same day and resolved to dismiss Intervenor for Defendant 1, Intervenor for Defendant 2, and Non-parties 1 and 2. The court below rejected the portions of the testimony of witnesses ○○○ and ○○○ that contradicted these findings. Examining the record, the process by which the court below weighed the evidence in making the above factual findings is legitimate, and it cannot be said that there was any violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the grounds of appeal. This ground of appeal is without merit.
As to Ground of Appeal No. (2):
Under Article 40, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Union Act (노동조합법), a worker or labor union whose rights have been infringed by an unfair labor practice of an employer may file an application for relief with the Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, with respect to an unfair labor practice committed against a worker on the ground that the worker had attempted to organize a labor union, a labor union established thereafter must also be deemed to have an independent right to file an application for relief. The judgment below, which is to this effect, is legitimate, and it cannot be said that there was any error of misapprehension of the law as pointed out in the grounds of appeal. This ground of appeal is without merit.
As to Ground of Appeal No. (3):
Even if the above four persons who received the dismissal disposition received, without reservation of objection, the dismissal allowance and severance pay deposited by the Plaintiff, and even if some of them found employment at other companies, if, immediately upon the dismissal disposition, they filed an application for relief with the Regional Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the dismissal constituted an unfair labor practice, and a remedial order was issued by the Regional Labor Relations Commission, and the Plaintiff, dissatisfied therewith, continued to dispute the matter, while the four dismissed persons received the deposited dismissal allowance and severance pay as described above, it cannot be deemed that the four dismissed persons thereby acknowledged the dismissal as lawful (see this Court's Judgments 71Da1635, rendered June 27, 1972; 78Da1855, rendered February 13, 1979; 86Daka1873, rendered April 28, 1987; and 87Daka1187, rendered September 22, 1987). This ground of appeal is without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are to be borne by the losing party. This judgment is rendered as stated in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating in the decision.
Justice Park Woo-dong (Presiding Justice), Lee Jae-seong, Yoon Young-chul, Kim Yong-jun