Auto Association: "Hyundai Motor Irregular Workers Union Ruling Ignores Reality"

"Victims Denied Compensation Due to Their Own Efforts to Mitigate Damages"

The Korea Automobile Mobility Industry Association (KAMA) expressed serious concerns on the 16th regarding the court ruling on the damages lawsuit related to the Hyundai Motor irregular workers' union strike, stating that it "ignores industrial realities."

In a statement, the association said, "We believe the decision overlooks the actual damages suffered by the company."

The Hyundai Motor irregular workers' union occupied parts of the Ulsan plant's chair assembly line in 2012, demanding direct employment of subcontracted irregular workers. In response, Hyundai Motor filed a damages lawsuit against union members participating in the illegal strike, seeking compensation for losses caused by the strike.

The first and second trial courts ruled partially in favor of Hyundai Motor, but in June 2023, the Supreme Court overturned and remanded the lower court's decision, stating that the liability for damages of each striking union member must be individually assessed. Recently, the Busan High Court dismissed all of Hyundai Motor's claims in the retrial following the remand.

The association pointed out, "The court denied the occurrence of damages to the company based on the fact that the originally planned production volume was restored through additional operations," adding, "It is difficult to accept as common sense that a victim who made efforts to mitigate damages does not receive rightful compensation."

It continued, "Even if the annual production target was achieved, the loss of opportunities for additional production and sales beyond the plan constitutes irreparable damage," and argued, "Fixed costs already incurred are also irrecoverable, and additional fixed costs and labor costs invested to compensate for this should be reflected in the damage calculation."

KAMA stated, "We question whether the court regarded the parties involved in the illegal strike as socially vulnerable and failed to deliver a balanced judgment," and added, "Reducing the perpetrator's responsibility on the grounds that the victim minimized damages through various means does not align with legal justice and is difficult to consider a fair ruling."