
The Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court acquitted Hyundai Steel and its former CEO, who were indicted on charges of hiring replacement workers during the 2021 supplier union strike, on the grounds that there was no direct labor contract relationship under the Labor Union Act before the amendment.
AI-generated summary
As this was a case before the implementation of the revised Yellow Envelope Act, the key criterion was whether a direct employment contract was concluded, not whether actual control was established.
(Seosan = Yonhap News) Reporter Jeong Yun-deok = A court ruled that if a primary contractor company did not directly enter into labor contracts with workers of its partner companies before the revised Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (Yellow Envelope Act) went into effect, it cannot be considered an employer.
On the 9th, Judge Kim Beom-jun, Criminal Division 1, Seosan Branch, Daejeon District Court, acquitted Hyundai Steel Corporation and its former CEO, Mr. A (65), who were indicted on charges of hiring replacement workers during the union strike.
Hyundai Steel and others were put on trial in January on charges of substituting about 1,500 workers to partner companies when Hyundai Steel's non-regular branch went on strike between August and October 2021.
Article 43, Paragraph 1 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act stipulates that employers cannot hire or replace people unrelated to the business to perform work interrupted by industrial action.
Judge Kim said, “This is a case in which the pre-revision law must be applied,” and added, “In order for Hyundai Steel to be considered an employer of the workers of its partner companies at the time, it should have signed a direct labor contract with the workers, but it is difficult to say that this fact has been proven.”
Previously, Hyundai Steel argued during the trial that "the employers subject to the law as of 2021 were the partner companies to which the striking workers belonged, and Hyundai Steel and its CEO were not in that position."
The revised law, which expanded the scope of employers to those who are in a position to substantively and specifically control and determine working conditions even if they are not a party to a labor contract, went into effect on March 10 of this year.

The Seoul Administrative Court ruled that survivor benefits must be paid to the surviving family of worker A, who died due to work stress after being forced to return to work while recovering from a cerebral hemorrhage. It was acknowledged that the causal relationship was that he returned to work without sufficient recovery after developing a cerebral hemorrhage due to overwork, which worsened his existing symptoms and led to his death.

The late poet Kim Nam-ju, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for violating the National Security Act in 1979, was acquitted in a retrial 46 years later, but the prosecution filed an appeal. Poet Kim, who was arrested on charges of joining the Namminjeon Preparatory Committee, wrote poetry while in prison, and died of pancreatic cancer in 1994.

In the appeal trial for the suspension of execution of the dismissal filed by former Director Kim Hyeong-seok of the Independence Hall of Korea, the court decided to pay the salary, and the Supreme Court confirmed the decision. Accordingly, the government is now in a situation where it must pay salaries to both current and former directors until the results of the lawsuit are resolved.

Air Force Captain A, who was suspended on charges of forcibly molesting a colleague's girlfriend while drinking, filed a lawsuit to have the disciplinary action revoked, but lost. The court acknowledged the fact of molestation based on the victim's injuries and the circumstances of the scene.

Unification Church leader Han Hak-ja has appealed her two-year prison sentence for bribing former President Yoon Suk Yeol's wife and other corruption charges.

In a case where a patient undergoing cardiovascular expansion surgery died, the Gwangju District Court acknowledged the hospital's violation of its duty by failing to directly explain the risks of the procedure to the patient and ordered each bereaved family to pay 3.63 million won in compensation, but ruled that it did not recognize the causal relationship between the procedure and death.