(b) Whether the lawful dismissal of a dismissed worker who is dissatisfied with a request for remedy to the Regional Labor Relations Commission shall be recognized when he/she receives the deposited dismissal allowance and retirement allowance (negative);

B. Even if an employee, who was dismissed, received the dismissal allowance and retirement allowance deposited by the employer without reservation, and was employed by another company, the above employee cannot be deemed to have been deemed to have received the above deposit, if he/she received the order of remedy by filing an application for remedy with the Regional Labor Relations Commission immediately since the dismissal was an unfair labor practice, and continued to dispute with the employer’s objection.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

On July 18, 198, the court below decided that the non-party Kim-ok and the non-party mobile scrap, who is the trade head of the plaintiff company, should dissolve the labor union against the defendant joining the defendant, but rejected the following rejection, the representative director indirectly convened at the meeting room of the head office to criticize the establishment of the labor union, and instead, the union's increased number of union subscribers convened the personnel management committee at around 20:0 on the same day, and rejected some of the witness's disease investigation and the witness testimony against this decision. In light of the records, the court below's examination of the evidence preparation process, which the court below acknowledged the above facts, was just and there was no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

According to Article 40 (1) of the Trade Union Act, since workers or trade unions whose rights are infringed due to unfair labor practices of employers can file an application for remedy with the Labor Relations Commission, it shall be deemed that trade unions established later have the right to independent remedy against unfair labor practices committed against workers on the ground that they attempted to organize a trade union. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the arguments. The arguments are without merit.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

Although the above four persons, who were dismissed, received the retirement allowance and retirement allowance deposited by the plaintiff without reservation, and some of them were employed by another company, they would immediately be subject to a disposition of dismissal and the order of remedy was issued by the local Labor Relations Commission by making an application for remedy to the local Labor Relations Commission on the ground that it was an unfair labor practice and continued to be dissatisfied with the plaintiff's objection, and if the above four persons were to receive the deposited dismissal allowance and retirement allowance, it cannot be deemed that the dismissed four persons were lawful (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Da1635 delivered on June 27, 197, 78Da1855 delivered on February 13, 197, 86Da1873 delivered on April 28, 1987, and 87Da1187 delivered on September 22, 1987).

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)