'Every day felt like hell': How union members' illegal work slowdown drove a father of three to his death

The late Lee Young-hoon ran a CJ Logistics parcel delivery sub-agency. He had built it up over 15 years, saving money bit by bit from his work as a delivery driver. **Lee died by suicide, leaving a note that named 12 union members by their real names.**

In the note, Lee wrote that he had "experienced the union members' illegal work slowdown for the first time," and that even after the slowdown ended, he had been notified they would "carry out more intense union activities" — leaving him feeling "like every day is hell." He added, "Do not forget that there is someone who chose the path of death because of you," and pleaded that he could no longer endure the collective harassment.

It was August 2021 — the moment the full truth behind what became known as the "Gimpo delivery sub-agency owner death case" came to light.

The sub-agency employed 17 delivery drivers. Twelve of them formed a union branch called the "Gimpo Chapter" in May 2021 and launched a work slowdown. Claiming that delivery fees were miscalculated, they refused to deliver large or heavy items such as bottled water. Package weights could have been measured by machine and fees adjusted accordingly, but the union members declined to do so.

An average of 200 parcels piled up each day. Lee and his family had to take over all the deliveries the union members refused — they had no choice. If deliveries went unmet, Lee faced penalty fees from CJ Logistics or the loss of his delivery zone. Work did not end until around 1 or 2 a.m., and by the next morning packages had piled up again to heights of 3 to 4 meters.

Lee worked around the clock — holidays, weekends, day and night. Within a month of the slowdown, he was hospitalized from overwork. The union members mocked him. In a group chat they shared, messages were filled with insults and taunts such as "Isn't he faking it?" and "Why isn't he in a wheelchair?" One union member wrote, "Let's push harder and take over the sub-agency."

Sixty times. In just three months, defamatory and insulting messages targeting one person were exchanged among union members 60 times. Even after Lee died by suicide, unable to bear it any longer, there was no apology or remorse. The secondary abuse continued. The members spread false claims that Lee had embezzled commissions and goods owed to delivery drivers — allegations that were untrue.

On one YouTube channel, they spread the false claim that Lee "was a corrupt manager who earned 50 million won a month." They also argued they bore no responsibility for his death, claiming, among other things, that "Lee had many debts."

After Lee's death, his family's life changed completely. His wife wound down the existing delivery zone and opened a new sub-agency. They sold the apartment they had been living in, found a jeonse rental and moved. She is now raising their three children alone.

The bereaved family and fellow sub-agency owners established a scholarship in Lee's name. At a first-anniversary memorial in August 2022, the "Lee Young-hoon Scholarship" was presented to 23 children of delivery workers. The family and colleagues had pooled their own money to fund it.

Public criticism of the delivery union ran high at the time. In September 2021, the union said it would "return to its founding principles." However, it was wary of the case being highlighted as a conflict between sub-agencies and the union. The union said, "If we leave the weak fighting among themselves and ignore the problems of the powerful — the delivery companies — we cannot expect stability on the delivery floor."

In the criminal case, guilty verdicts against the perpetrators have already been finalized. Sentences varied according to the degree of involvement, ranging from suspended prison terms to fines.

Of the 13 people the bereaved family filed complaints against, the two who led the defamation, obstruction of business and insult offenses received final sentences of eight months in prison suspended for two years, and four months suspended for one year, respectively. A third received a fine of 1 million won in a formal trial on insult charges. Most of the remaining individuals received finalized summary orders imposing fines.

The civil case has recently reached a verdict, it has been confirmed. The bereaved family of Lee won their civil lawsuit filed against 13 perpetrators.

The family filed suit in December last year seeking an order for the 13 perpetrators to jointly pay approximately 900 million won ($612,200) in damages. The court partially accepted the claim, ruling that 11 of the perpetrators must jointly pay approximately 230 million won.

The first-division civil panel of the Bucheon Branch of Incheon District Court, presided over by Chief Judge Jo Jeong-min, issued the ruling on June 12.

Despite their criminal convictions already being final, the perpetrators refused to acknowledge liability for damages during the civil proceedings.

They argued their actions "constituted lawful conduct" and that "it has not been proven that their messages obstructed the deceased's business." They further claimed that "the defamatory and insulting expressions were merely part of raising grievances" and served a "public interest purpose." They also contended that because the messages were exchanged in a union members' group chat, "there is no proof of how they were conveyed to the deceased," and that "there is no causal link between the unlawful acts and the death."

The civil court, however, sided with the bereaved family. Drawing on the earlier criminal rulings, the panel found that "the perpetrators' joint unlawful acts — obstruction of business, insult and defamation — are judged to have driven the deceased to take his own life," adding that "the deceased explicitly expressed in his suicide note the suffering caused by the perpetrators' collective harassment and recorded their real names."

The court also censured the defendants, finding that they had engaged in collective action for several months — refusing to deliver a substantial volume of parcels under the pretext of requesting improvements — before formally obtaining the right to strike through lawful procedures, and that "they exchanged remarks mocking, belittling and insulting the deceased."

The court further found that "contrary to the perpetrators' claims, the deceased never embezzled delivery drivers' commissions or engaged in any corrupt conduct," and that "there is also no fact that he took delivery zones from drivers and reassigned them to others, or embezzled membership fees."

However, the court dismissed the family's claims against two individuals whose involvement was deemed relatively minor — limited to defamation and insult without obstruction of business — ruling that "considering the content, frequency and context of their expressions, it is difficult to recognize a causal link with the deceased's death."

The ruling has not yet been finalized. Both the bereaved family and the perpetrators have filed appeals, and a second trial is set to proceed.