Hyundai Motor Strike Case Resembling the ‘Yellow Envelope Act’ Referred to the Full Bench... Supreme Court ‘Reversal and Remand’
The Supreme Court ruled that when a company holds individual union members liable for damages due to participation in an illegal strike, the degree of illegal conduct must be individually assessed to determine the proportion of responsibility. This case was known as a damages claim case similar to the Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act amendment (commonly called the ‘Yellow Envelope Act’) that was contested by ruling and opposition parties in the National Assembly in 2023. Initially referred to the Supreme Court’s full bench, the case was unexpectedly decided by a smaller panel, drawing attention.
The Supreme Court’s Civil Division 3 (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) on June 15 overturned the lower court’s partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the damages claim lawsuit (2017Da46274) filed by Hyundai Motor Company against four union members including Mr. A of the Hyundai Motor Irregular Workers’ Branch of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union, and remanded the case to the Busan High Court.
On June 29, in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, union members hold related hand placards at the Metalworkers' Union press conference following the Supreme Court ruling on Hyundai Motor Company's illegal dispatch of non-regular workers strike damages. [Image source=Yonhap News]
Similarly, the damages claim case (2018Da41986) filed by Hyundai Motor demanding compensation for fixed costs from union members was also reversed and remanded.
Qualcomm’s ‘1 Trillion Won Fine’ for Unfair Trade Practices Confirmed
The Supreme Court upheld the Fair Trade Commission’s imposition of a record-breaking fine of approximately 1.03 trillion won on multinational company Qualcomm in 2016 for abusing its dominant market position and engaging in unfair trade practices.
A court has ruled that the 1 trillion won fine imposed by the Fair Trade Commission on multinational telecommunications company Qualcomm for allegedly forcing unfair contracts on mobile phone manufacturers is justified. [Image source=Yonhap News]
The Supreme Court’s Special Division 3 (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) on April 13 affirmed the lower court’s partial ruling in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit (2020Du31897) filed by Qualcomm Incorporated and others against the Fair Trade Commission seeking cancellation of corrective orders.
The Seoul High Court ruled that although some of the Fair Trade Commission’s corrective orders were unlawful and should be canceled, the entire fine of 1.0311 trillion won, calculated based on the abuse of dominant market position, was lawful. The Supreme Court agreed with this judgment.
Supreme Court Full Bench: “The Ritual Host Should Be the Eldest Closest Lineal Descendant Regardless of Son or Daughter”
Chief Justice Kim Myung-soo and the Supreme Court justices are seated in the Grand Courtroom of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the afternoon of May 11, to deliver a plenary session ruling on whether the status of the eldest son as the host of ancestral rites is recognized.
The Supreme Court full bench ruled that the ‘ritual host’ who holds ownership of the property for ancestral rites under civil law is determined by agreement among co-heirs, but if no agreement is reached, the eldest closest lineal descendant of the deceased, regardless of gender, shall take the role. This overturned the previous ruling that prioritized the eldest son after 15 years.
The Supreme Court full bench (Presiding Justice Jo Jae-yeon) on May 11 overturned the lower court’s ruling against the plaintiff in the lawsuit (2018Da248626) filed by the deceased Mr. A’s legal wife and two daughters against Mr. B, Mr. A’s mistress, and the foundation operating the memorial park, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
Supreme Court Full Bench: “Changing Employment Rules to Detriment of Workers Is Generally Invalid Without Collective Consent”
The Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling that allowed exceptions where changes to employment rules unfavorable to workers could be valid without collective consent if deemed socially reasonable. However, the Court noted that abuse of consent rights by labor unions could be an exception.
The Supreme Court full bench (Presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) on May 11 overturned the lower court’s ruling against Hyundai Motor executives in the unjust enrichment refund lawsuit (2017Da35588) and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.
‘Empire’s Comfort Women’ Author Park Yoo-ha’s Acquittal Reversal and Remand... Supreme Court: “Not Defamation”
In the book "Comfort Women of the Empire," the Supreme Court ruled that Sejong University Professor Emeritus Park Yu-ha cannot be punished for defamation for describing Japanese military comfort women victims as "prostitutes." [Image source=Yonhap News]
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the lower court’s guilty verdict against Park Yoo-ha, honorary professor at Sejong University, who was charged with defaming victims of Japanese military sexual slavery. The Court ruled that the case should be evaluated as academic argument or expression of opinion. This case, related to freedom of expression, took about eight years since being brought to trial in December 2015.
The Supreme Court Criminal Division 3 (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) held the final hearing on October 26 and overturned the lower court’s ruling that imposed a 10 million won fine on Professor Park, remanding the case to the Seoul High Court (2017Do18697).
Supreme Court Full Bench: “Non-Permanent Public Sector Workers Not Receiving Seniority Allowance, etc., Is Not Discrimination”
The Supreme Court full bench ruled that the failure to pay seniority allowances and performance bonuses to non-permanent public sector workers, unlike public officials, does not constitute ‘discriminatory treatment’ prohibited by the Labor Standards Act. It reasoned that non-permanent workers and public officials do not belong to the same group of workers and thus cannot be compared.
The Supreme Court full bench (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) on September 21 affirmed the lower court’s ruling against 62 plaintiffs including Mr. A in a wage claim lawsuit against the state (2016Da255941).
“Health Insurance Dependent Status Revocation for Same-Sex Partner Illegal”
A same-sex couple won a second-instance administrative lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service, seeking recognition of their status as dependents under their spouse's health insurance.
The first ruling recognizing health insurance dependent status for same-sex partners, similar to other de facto spouses, was issued.
The Seoul High Court Administrative Division 1-3 (Presiding Judges Lee Seung-han, Shim Jun-bo, Kim Jong-ho) on February 21 overturned the first-instance ruling against plaintiff Mr. A in the appeal of the insurance premium imposition cancellation lawsuit against the National Health Insurance Service (2022Nu32797) and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The court stated, “Recognizing dependent status only for de facto spouses but not for same-sex partners constitutes discriminatory treatment against essentially the same group based on sexual orientation.”
Two Panels Hear Case Simultaneously in Same Courtroom... First ‘Joint Hearing Judgment’
For the first time in judicial history last year, two panels conducted a ‘joint hearing’ simultaneously in the same courtroom. One of the panels that conducted the joint hearing has now delivered its judgment. Joint hearings are known as ‘Joint Hearing’ in countries like the United States.
The Seoul High Court Civil Division 18 (Presiding Judge Jung Jun-young, Judges Min Dal-gi and Kim Yong-min) on September 22 partially ruled in favor of plaintiffs in the damages claim lawsuits (2022Na2008526, 2022Na2009437) filed by the National Pension Service and DB Financial Investment against Daewoo Shipbuilding and Anjin Accounting Corporation.
Supreme Court: “‘Tada’ Is Not an Illegal Taxi Service”… Lee Jae-woong’s Acquittal Confirmed
The former executives of the ride-hailing service ‘Tada’, who were indicted amid controversy over being a pseudo-taxi service, were acquitted with the verdict finalized.
On the afternoon of June 1, a car bearing the Tada logo was passing through the Sejong-daero intersection in Seoul. The Supreme Court's 3rd Division upheld the original ruling by dismissing the appeal, confirming the not guilty verdict for former Socar CEO Lee Jae-woong and former VCNC CEO Park Jae-wook, who operated Tada, on charges of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act. The corporations Socar and VCNC, which were also indicted, were likewise confirmed not guilty. [Image source=Yonhap News]
The Supreme Court Criminal Division 3 (Presiding Justice Oh Seok-jun) on June 1 affirmed the lower court’s acquittal of former SoCar CEO Lee Jae-woong, former Tada operator VCNC CEO Park Jae-wook, and related corporations on charges of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act (2022Do13414).
The first and second instance courts accepted Tada’s arguments and acquitted the two individuals. The Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Constitutional Court: “It Is Difficult to View the ‘Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Authority’ Legislation as Invalid”
Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok and the Constitutional Court justices took their seats on the afternoon of March 23 at the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul, for the ruling on the jurisdiction dispute trial regarding the legislation on the complete removal of prosecutorial investigation rights (Geomsu Wanbak). [Image source=Yonhap News]
The Constitutional Court ruled that the ‘Complete Removal of Prosecutorial Investigation Authority’ law (commonly called ‘Geomsu Wanbak’) is valid. While the Court found that the then Chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee infringed on the rights of People Power Party members to deliberate and vote during the legislative process, it concluded that the passage of the bill itself was not invalid. Regarding the jurisdictional dispute claims filed by the Ministry of Justice and prosecutors, the Court dismissed the claim against the Minister of Justice due to lack of standing, and dismissed the claim against prosecutors on the grounds that there was no possibility of rights infringement. Jurisdictional disputes require a majority of at least five out of nine Constitutional Court justices to be accepted.
On March 23, in the jurisdictional dispute case (2022HeonRa2) filed by People Power Party lawmakers Yoo Sang-beom and Jeon Ju-hye against the Chairperson of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, the Court ruled 5 (acceptance) to 4 (dismissal) that the Chairperson’s act of declaring the passage of amendments to the Prosecutors’ Office Act and Criminal Procedure Act at the plenary session on April 27, 2022, infringed on the petitioners’ (People Power Party lawmakers) rights to deliberate and vote on the bills. However, the claim to confirm infringement of authority by the Speaker’s declaration of bill passage was dismissed by a 5 (dismissal) to 4 (acceptance) vote. The claims to confirm invalidity of each declaration of passage of the Prosecutors’ Office Act and Criminal Procedure Act amendments were also rejected by a 5 (dismissal) to 4 (acceptance) vote.
Park Soo-yeon, Legal Times Reporter
※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
![Clutching a Stolen Dior Bag, Saying "I Hate Being Poor but Real"... The Grotesque Con of a "Human Knockoff" [Slate]](https://cwcontent.asiae.co.kr/asiaresize/183/2026021902243444107_1771435474.jpg)
