B. Whether the effect of expulsion was recognized in a case where there were objective circumstances to deem that a member, who was expelled from a trade union, received retirement benefits without reservation of explicit objection, but did not dispute the validity of the disciplinary action (negative)

(c) The case holding that even though a member received the retirement allowance after receiving the expulsion from the trade union, he shall not be deemed to have renounced his intention to dispute the validity of the disciplinary action at the time of receiving the retirement allowance in light of all the circumstances, etc. until a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity

B. It should be reasonable to deem that the disciplinary action was valid in a case where a member expelled from the trade union did not make any reservation or condition of objection while receiving retirement allowances, barring special circumstances. However, even in such a case, even if there are objective circumstances to deem that the disciplinary action was effective without recognizing the validity of the disciplinary action, or there are other opposing circumstances such as the receipt of retirement allowances, etc. under circumstances where there are considerable reasons, it should not be deemed that the effect of the expulsion action was uniformly recognized even in a case where a member receives retirement allowances, etc. without reservation.

(c) The case holding that even though a member received the retirement allowance after receiving the expulsion from the trade union, he shall not be deemed to have renounced his intention to dispute the validity of the disciplinary action at the time of receiving the retirement allowance, in light of all the circumstances, etc. until a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The remedy under the administrative litigation asserted by the Defendant refers to the remedy for the disciplinary action against the members of a trade union who do not belong to the employer pursuant to Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 40 through 43 of the Trade Union Act, and Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, and Article 40 through 43 of the same Act. In the event that an employee makes a request for remedy against unfair labor practices to the Regional Labor Relations Commission, the request for review shall be made in sequence to the National Labor Relations Commission, and all the parties who are dissatisfied with

Therefore, the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case is legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the jurisdiction of the court such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason for discussing it.

2. On the second ground for appeal

If a member who was expelled from a trade union did not make any reservation or condition against the union in the course of receiving retirement allowances from the union, it would be reasonable to view that the disciplinary action was valid unless there are special circumstances. However, even in such a case, even if there are objective circumstances to deem that the disciplinary action was not effective, or there are other circumstances, such as the receipt of retirement allowances without any explicit objection, it shall not be deemed that the disciplinary action was uniformly recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4952 delivered on January 25, 191; Supreme Court Decision 91Da263 delivered on May 14, 191; Supreme Court Decision 92Da1728 delivered on April 14, 1992).

As duly determined by the court below, after receiving a disciplinary action from the defendant union on July 26, 1989, the plaintiff claimed retirement allowances from the defendant union member retirement allowances management committee on August 26, 1989, and received retirement allowances from the above committee on August 30 of the same month. On the 28th of the same month, the plaintiff claimed for retirement allowances from the defendant union member retirement allowances management committee, and was paid to the defendant union on the 30th of the same month, and was returned from the Sungsan liaison Office on the 30th of the same month, and the construction fund was returned from the Sungsan liaison Office on the 30th of the same month, but the plaintiff raised an application for a disciplinary review against the defendant union on July 29 of the same year after receiving the retirement allowances from the defendant union for the purpose of appropriating living expenses, etc., and then the plaintiff did not dispute the validity of the above retirement allowances from the time of filing the lawsuit to the time of receiving the above retirement allowances from the plaintiff on September 23 of the same year.

The judgment below to the same purport is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of good faith, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.