No Union Fines for Protest No-Shows

In a lawsuit filed by an apartment reconstruction union to the district office, the court ruled for the first time that although it was agreed among the union members, imposing a 3.55 million won penalty for those who did not show up at a protest is invalid.

This judgment is expected to halt apartment reconstruction or redevelopment unions from imposing penalty fees on members who do not participate in protests.

In the appeals trial filed by Cho (aged 48) against a reconstruction union of an apartment in Seoul, the Seoul Western District Court on Tuesday ruled, “Cho is not obligated to pay the 3.55 million won penalty imposed against him.”

In September 2002, the reconstruction union decided to hold protests in the face of conflicts with the Jongno District office, and to impose a penalty fee of 50,000 won on union members who fail to show up at protests.

In November 2003, the union held an extraordinary general meeting, and raised the fine to 100,000 won. The decision was based on the article of the union that states the members’ obligation to pay fees. Cho did not participate in the two general meetings.

The union held protests and assemblies in the vicinity of Jongno District office for 55 days from September 2002 to late 2004. Cho, however, did not participate at a single assembly because of his job, and the union notified him to pay 3,550,000 won.

This incident developed into a lawsuit as Cho sold his house last February. Cho sold his house for 170 million won, and the union pressured him, saying that if he did not pay the penalty fee, it will collect it from the new owner. Cho gave 3.9 million won to the realtor and filed a lawsuit.

The point at issue was that whether the decision made at the extraordinary general meeting was valid.

Seoul Western District Court Judge Cho Byung-goo sided with Cho in the first instance trial last December.

“Freedom to assemble and protest not only includes the freedom to participate but also the passive freedom to not participate. The union’s forcing members to participate in protests and assemblies infringes upon the essence of freedom to assemble and protest,” ruled Judge Cho.

The appellate court ruled, “The article that the union claims as the basis for imposing penalty fees may be one for union members to pay the actual expenses of the union, but it cannot be the basis for imposing penalty fees for not participating at protests,” and dismissed the appeal from the union.

jefflee@donga.com