Court Rejects Hyundai Motor’s Compensation Claim Against Union Over Illegal Strike
Kim Jisun
stockmk2020@alphabiz.co.kr | 2025-02-11 04:19:02
Photo = Yonhap news
[Alpha Biz= Kim Jisun] According to the legal community on Monday, the Busan High Court's Civil Division 6 dismissed Hyundai Motor’s lawsuit against the Hyundai Motor Irregular Workers' Union and its members, in which the company sought damages for losses incurred due to an illegal strike.
In August 2012, the Hyundai Motor irregular workers' union halted assembly lines at the Ulsan plant while demanding direct employment. Hyundai Motor filed a lawsuit seeking KRW 531.81 million in damages, citing sales declines and fixed cost losses.
Both the first and second trial courts ruled that the union should compensate 60% of the damages, approximately KRW 320 million. However, in June 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and remanded the case, ordering a recalculation of the damages.
The Busan High Court ruled in favor of the union, stating, "It is difficult to confirm that Hyundai Motor was unable to sell vehicles due to the strike, and the production shortfall was later recovered."
Legal experts argue that this ruling disregards the fundamental principle of civil procedure, namely the "burden of proof." The court accepted the union's claim that additional production made up for lost output after the strike, even though the union failed to provide evidence supporting this assertion.
Criticism has also been raised that the court neglected the "rules of evidence," which require decisions to be based on credible proof. The ruling acknowledged that production fell by 12,700 units during the illegal occupation but concluded—without concrete evidence—that additional production afterward compensated for the loss, as annual production exceeded the initial target by 3,300 units.
However, Hyundai Motor demonstrated that production was actually 16,150 units below the 2012 annual goal, as the target varied monthly based on market conditions. Even a union witness testified that "actual operations adjust in response to planned production targets," but the court did not accept this testimony.
[ⓒ AlphaBIZ. 무단전재-재배포 금지]