1. According to Article 38(1) and (2) of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, a party concerned may file an application for review with the National Labor Relations Commission in cases where the arbitration award of a Regional Labor Relations Commission is deemed to be unlawful or unjust, and the National Labor Relations Commission may file an administrative suit in cases where the decision on review of the National Labor Relations Commission is deemed to be erroneous or unjust, regardless of the procedure or content thereof, and the decision on review of the National Labor Relations Commission may be brought for administrative litigation on the ground that the decision is erroneous or monthly right. In addition, according to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognizes that the court below did not deny the existence of labor relations between the plaintiff and the intervenor of the defendant and that the labor relations existed under a collective agreement under the arbitration award of the Local Labor Relations Council at ordinary and south-do, and that there was no labor relations between the plaintiff and the defendant intervenor was not erroneous, and therefore, this part of the judgment below is without merit.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the Plaintiff’s 3rd mar truck between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 2nd mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar.

However, even though it is justified that the plaintiff's wages are no longer needed due to the machinery and equipmentization of the plaintiff, according to the Eul evidence No. 3 employed by the court below, in a collective agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's assistant association, the Gyeongnam-do Regional Labor Relations Commission still needs human resources regardless of the plaintiff's mechanical equipmentization (However, in the case of a collective agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's assistant association, the plaintiff and the defendant's assistant association, the plaintiff should employ 30 won per ton of the cargo by using the equipment such as truck, paint, and cream, and other special work (Articles 13 and 10 of the collective agreement). However, in light of the reasoning of the court below, the court below did not have reasonable reasons to conclude that the plaintiff's wages are not sufficient to employ 30 won per ton of the cargo and the cargo loaded with the cargo loaded with the cargo loaded with the ground of the judgment below (Articles 13 and 10 of the collective agreement).

If so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to labor relations, conclusion of collective agreements and arbitration award, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to grounds and grounds, it is reasonable to argue that the court below erred.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)