[휴업지불예외승인재심판정취소][공1995.8.1.(997),2623]
A. Whether there exists any legal interest for workers to apply for a review to the National Labor Relations Commission in relation to the approval of any exception to the suspension or non-suspension of business by the Regional Labor Relations Commission under Article 38
(b) Period during which workers may apply for reexamination against the disposition of approval for non-suspension of closure of a Regional Labor Relations Commission;
A. Since the other party to the disposition that approved the non-suspension of the temporary closure of the Regional Labor Relations Commission pursuant to Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act is only the employer who filed the application for the approval, the notification of the disposition takes effect only with the employer, and even if the worker receives the reduction of the temporary closure allowance or is unable to receive it, it does not require the other party to the disposition or notify it to the worker. Thus, in granting the approval of the non-permanent closure exemption, it cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the worker did not have the other party to the disposition or did not deliver it to the worker. However, since the disposition directly affects the existence of the worker's claim for the payment of the allowance, the worker is a person who has an interest in the disposition and has the legal interest to apply for
B. Article 19(2) of the Labor Relations Commission Act provides that a new trial against the National Labor Relations Commission shall be conducted by both or one of the parties to the case within 10 days from the date on which the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission was served on him/her. However, workers are merely aware of the fact that the local Labor Relations Commission’s disposition was not directly related to the temporary closure of labor relations commission, but it was not related to the receipt of the disposition, and that there was a new trial against the disposition by the local Labor Relations Commission. Article 19(2) of the same Act states that the appeal against the disposition by the Central Labor Relations Commission shall be filed with the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the new trial has the nature as the previous trial procedure against the disposition by the local Labor Relations Commission, since the worker who has an interest in the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission has the nature as the administrative disposition, it is sufficient to apply for a new trial within the period of Article 18 of the Administrative Appeals Act, not within 10 days from the date on which the disposition was served to the employer.
(a) Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 19(2) and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act, Article 18 of the Administrative Appeals Act;
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission
Suwon Automobile Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu3700 delivered on June 16, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Since the other party to the disposition of approval for non-suspension of temporary closure of the Regional Labor Relations Commission under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act is only the employer who applied for the approval, the notification of the disposition takes effect only by the employer, and even if the worker receives a reduction of temporary closure allowance or is unable to receive it, it does not require the other party to the disposition or notify it to the worker. Therefore, in granting the approval for non-temporary closure, it cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the worker did not have the other party to the disposition or did not deliver it to the worker. However, since the disposition directly affects the existence of the worker's claim for compensation, the worker is a person who has an interest in the disposition and has a legal interest to apply for reexamination to the National Labor Relations Commission.
However, Article 19(2) of the Labor Relations Commission Act provides that a new trial against the National Labor Relations Commission shall be conducted by both or one of the parties within 10 days from the date on which the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission was served on the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1671, Nov. 9, 193), but workers are merely aware of the fact that the disposition was not directly related to the approval and disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission, but was not served with any other way, and Article 19 of the same Act provides that a new trial against the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission shall be filed with the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission. While Article 19-2 of the same Act provides that a new trial against the determination of the Central Labor Relations Commission shall be conducted with the nature of the previous trial proceedings in the revocation lawsuit against the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission, which has the nature of the administrative disposition, and that a new trial shall not be duly filed within the period of 19 years from the date on which the disposition was served to the employer or from the date on which the local Labor Relations Commission had been duly filed an application for new trial.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)