2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of the pleading.

A. On September 30, 1991, Nonparty tin was employed as survey assistant to the Plaintiff Company and worked at the site of Libya 2 Libya Libya Libya in the overseas construction site of the Plaintiff Company, and he returned early January 15, 192 to Korea on the left side, and was diagnosed by the Heayang University Hospital affiliated with the Korea National University.

B. The above tin, on the ground that the above disease was caused by the failure of the Dong to install a survey stand, etc. at the main office of the construction site at the above construction site to franchising the left eye, and that it was an occupational accident, and the plaintiff company filed a claim for accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act against the plaintiff company. However, the above disease was caused regardless of the work of the plaintiff company, and it was rejected on the ground that it was not an occupational accident.

C. Accordingly, on May 21, 1993 pursuant to Article 88 of the Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff Company filed a review and arbitration with the Seoul Regional Labor Office on May 21, 1993 pursuant to the Labor Standards Act, and the Seoul Regional Labor Office dismissed the petition. The above tin rejected the petition and filed a review and arbitration with the National Labor Relations Commission pursuant to Article 89 of the same Act. The National Labor Relations Commission revoked the above dismissal decision as of December 1, 1993, and determined that the above disease was recognized as an occupational accident, and the Plaintiff Company paid accident compensation to the above tin.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

The plaintiff asserts that the above disease was caused regardless of the work of the plaintiff company, and that the determination stated in the purport of the claim by the National Labor Relations Commission is an illegal decision made by mistake of the facts, and thus, the defendant asserts that the above decision by the National Labor Relations Commission is merely a recommending act, and thus it cannot be subject to administrative litigation, and thus, the lawsuit

In light of the fact that the employee or the employer is dissatisfied with the result of the examination or arbitration as prescribed in Articles 88 and 89 of the Labor Standards Act, regardless of the contents of the examination or arbitration, the decision of the Labor Relations Commission as to the matters concerning the accident compensation as prescribed in the Labor Standards Act (e.g., the employee's claim for accident compensation, the employer's passive confirmation lawsuit) is not an administrative disposition that has legal effect on the rights and obligations of the parties concerned, but it is merely an act with a recommended nature. Thus, the above decision of the National Labor Relations Commission shall not be subject to administrative litigation. The plaintiff's attorney argued that the above decision of the National Labor Relations Commission should not be subject to a different interpretation unless it is deleted on March 29, 1989. However, the above Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act requires the above examination or arbitration application prior to the filing of a civil suit as to accident compensation, so it would be more easier to file a civil lawsuit by the removal of the above provisions (the grounds for deletion of the above provisions are not justified.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gangnam-su (Presiding Judge) (Jho Young-ho Kim Man)