A. Article 40(1) of the Trade Union Act and Article 27-3(1) of the Labor Standards Act provide that where an unfavorable measure, such as dismissal of workers, constitutes an unfair labor practice or has been taken without good cause, a Labor Relations Commission may file an application for remedy, thereby establishing an administrative remedy procedure by the Labor Relations Commission. In order to prevent, promptly, simple, economical, and flexible remedy against the harmful effects of litigation proceedings, such as decentralization of ordinary remedy methods through civil procedure, delay of procedure and excessive burden of expenses, etc. In order to secure functions as a prompt and simple administrative remedy procedure, Article 40(2) of the Trade Union Act provides that an application for remedy against unfair labor practice shall be filed within three months from the date of such act (the date of completion of the act) and Article 27-3(2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that the provisions of Article 40(2) of the Trade Union Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to an application for remedy against unfair dismissal, etc.

Moreover, in the administrative remedy procedure for unfair labor practices, the subject of review is limited to specific facts that constitute unfair labor practices subject to the request for remedy (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu1579 delivered on April 7, 1995). The period of request for remedy against unfair labor practices, etc. shall be calculated from the date when the specific facts alleged by the applicant as the unfair labor practices have occurred or when the employer has a disadvantageous disposition such as dismissal under Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act (in case of continuing to do so, the date of termination), and the conclusion shall not vary even if the worker has followed the review procedure in accordance with the rules of employment, etc. against the unfavorable disposition such as dismissal, and the period of request for remedy shall aim to secure the function as a prompt and simple administrative remedy procedure, so the right to request for administrative remedy shall expire upon the expiration of that period.

According to the records, when the plaintiff filed an application for remedy in this case with the Jeonnam-do Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 20, 1994, it seems that the specific facts that the plaintiff took place due to the defendant's assistant intervenor's unfair labor practices or unfair dismissal by the intervenor (hereinafter "the intervenor") on June 1, 1993 are clear that the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal from office was the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal from office on November 8, 1993 and the voluntary dismissal on December 17 of the same year, and that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the agreement with the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal from office on December 17 of the same year is not carried out after the specific facts or disposition that the plaintiff did not take place after the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal from office were made. Thus, it seems that it was merely an additional statement of the situation since it was difficult to view the plaintiff as being the object of the request for remedy, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff's request for remedy in this case's voluntary dismissal from the date of the plaintiff's application for remedy.

Therefore, the application for remedy of this case is unlawful since it is evident that the plaintiff was made after the expiration of the statutory period from the date of the dismissal disposition against the plaintiff, which was made as the last unfair labor practice, after the expiration of the statutory period. The judgment below to this purport is justifiable, and there is no ground to view that there is no error like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

B. As long as the Plaintiff’s request for remedy of this case is inappropriate, the remaining allegations in the grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal on the premise that the Plaintiff’s request for remedy of this case is either a dispute over the fact-finding of the lower court as to whether an agreement was reached as alleged by the Plaintiff after a specific fact or disposition was made against the Plaintiff due to unfair labor practices, or that the dismissal against the Plaintiff constitutes unfair labor practices.

2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)