(a) Where an administrative disposition, the effective period of which is fixed, loses its effect upon the lapse of such period, but there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of such disposition;

(b) The case holding that there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the part concerning the working hours, working days, and daily working hours, etc., which are the standard for calculation of basic pay, among the arbitration review decisions by the National Labor Relations Commission, after the expiry of the effective period, but there is a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the part concerning the monthly standard amount of transportation revenue and bonus payment limits;

A. Where the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined by Acts and subordinate statutes or a disposition itself, if there are special circumstances to deem that a disposition is in violation of certain legal interests due to the remaining appearance of the disposition after the lapse of such period, the legal interests to seek the cancellation of such disposition shall not be denied.

B. The case holding that there is a legal interest to seek revocation of the arbitration review on the monthly transport earnings standard amount and bonus payment limit amount among the matters subject to the arbitration review decision of the National Labor Relations Commission after the expiry of the effective period, and there is a possibility that if the contents of the agreement were to be cancelled and the agreement is modified, there is a possibility that the unpaid wage difference can be claimed later, and the employees' profit therefrom shall be deemed not just a substantial profit, but also a legal interest based on collective bargaining right, etc., on the ground that the above monthly transport earnings standard amount and bonus payment limit amount can be claimed later.

(b)Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act : (b) Article 39(1) of the Trade Dispute Mediation Act;

Dongyang Trade Union et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and 5 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

-Appellee Special Forwarding Co., Ltd. and five Defendant joining the Defendant, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu10229 delivered on August 22, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiffs regarding the arbitration review decision on monthly transportation revenue standard and bonus payment restriction shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal Nos. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below prepared a separate statement of wage agreement between the plaintiffs and the 245 taxi transport business trade unions and their employer located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the plaintiffs, with the meaning of "other matters stipulated in the wage agreement of 1989" as stated in paragraph (5) of the 1990 wage agreement between the labor union of 245 taxi transport business and its employer, as well as the meaning of "other matters shall be in accordance with the wage agreement of 1989, which was concluded by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the local Labor Relations Commission and the defendant with respect to the above other matters, and determined that the above basic wage agreement agreement of 190, including the increase of basic pay rate and the terms and conditions of payment of bonuses, could not affect the above basic wage agreement of 190s (paragraph (5) of the above basic agreement) on the basis of the contents of the agreement. According to the wage agreement agreement, the court below held that the plaintiffs' disputes in the lawsuit of this case could not affect the above facts of the agreement of this case 90 years.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the interpretation of Paragraph (5) of the above wage agreement and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal 2.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the wage negotiation phenomenon between the above trade union and its employer cannot be seen as a conclusion based on the macro-Evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the local Labor Relations Commission rendered an arbitration award with respect to the above wage agreement from April 1, 1989 to March 31, 199 upon the employer's request for arbitration, with the term of validity of the said wage agreement from May 6, 1989. Upon the above trade union's request for reexamination, the court below determined that the above arbitration award has no effect on the part concerning working hours, working days, classification of wages, basic wages, monthly and annual paid leave among the above arbitration award on August 16, 1989, and that the defendant revoked and revised the above arbitration award with respect to the remaining parts, and that the arbitration award or re-adjudication decision of the Labor Relations Commission had no effect on the ground that it had no effect on the application or suspension of transportation as well as the above administrative litigation by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 39 (1) of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

However, even if the effective period of an administrative disposition is determined by the law or the disposition itself, if there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining form of the disposition after the lapse of such period, the legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition shall not be denied.

Examining the contents of the above arbitration review decision in this case, it is difficult to find out the part of the review decision on the working hours, working days, and daily working hours, which are the basis for calculation of basic pay, in which the plaintiffs are argued to be erroneous. However, the part on the monthly transport income standard amount and bonus payment limit among the matters subject to the above arbitration review decision, which are subject to the above arbitration review decision, may be able to claim ex post facto the unpaid wage difference even about the validity period of the above arbitration review decision which has already passed if the contents of the agreement were to be revoked, and the interest of the workers shall be deemed to be a legal interest based on collective bargaining right, etc., not just a mere de facto interest, and therefore, the above monthly transport income standard amount and bonus payment limit amount shall be deemed to have a legal interest to seek revocation of the arbitration review decision.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in litigation in a revocation suit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the court below’s decision to review the arbitration as to the above mentioned matters has no legal interest in seeking its revocation on the grounds that the validity period expired. Therefore, the argument pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding the decision on the review of arbitration as to monthly transportation revenue standard amount and bonus payment limit is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed portion are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)