(a) Whether a trade union is admitted to apply for a retrial or to standing to sue in revocation of a decision on approval of non-permanent or non-permanent approval of the Regional Labor Relations Commission;

(b) Whether or not a person who was not a party to the procedure for review by the National Labor Relations Commission may institute a revocation suit against a decision on review;

A. The approval decision of the Regional Labor Relations Commission, which directly affects the occurrence of the worker's claim for payment of allowances, is a worker who is the claim for wages under the Labor Standards Act, and the trade union is a person who is distinct from them, shall not be recognized as the applicant for reexamination even though the above approval decision or the decision for reexamination was actually interested, or the person concerned under Article 16 (1) of the Labor Relations Commission Act was not recognized as the applicant for reexamination. Although the National Labor Relations Commission rejected the application for reexamination without dismissing the application for reexamination, the standing to sue is not recognized to institute a lawsuit against the trade union to revoke the application for reexamination or the decision for reexamination.

B. The provisions of Article 19-2(1) of the Labor Relations Commission Act concerning the requirements for the exclusive jurisdiction in the case of an administrative suit against the disposition by a local Labor Relations Commission which has the nature of the administrative disposition, is the nature of the procedure as the previous trial in the case of a revocation suit against the approval disposition by a local Labor Relations Commission. Thus, a person who was not a party to the procedure of reexamination by the National Labor Relations Commission may not institute a revocation suit against the relevant decision by the Central Labor Relations Commission.

(a) Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 27-3(b) of the Labor Standards Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4420 decided Feb. 9, 1990 (Gong1990,659) 92Nu1114 decided Nov. 13, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 139) 92Nu12452 decided May 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1893Ha, 1893) B. Supreme Court Decision 82Nu48 decided Dec. 14, 1982 (Gong1983,298)

Attorney Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu23587 delivered on December 10, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, has standing to sue in an administrative litigation seeking cancellation or change of the disposition where legal interests are infringed on by the disposition, but in such cases, "interest protected by law" refers to the direct and specific interests that should be legally protected, so a person who has a de facto and indirect relationship does not have such right to institute an administrative litigation.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor) started business on April 17, 1991, and applied for an exception to non-suspension of business closure in order to pay business closure allowances to the Intervenor’s Bupyeong Factory workers, including Plaintiff 2, in accordance with Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act. The above Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted the Intervenor’s company’s application from April 17 to 30 of the same month, and decided to approve the non-disclosure of business closure allowances. The Plaintiff Daewoo Automobile Workers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff Union), which is a trade union organized by the Intervenor’s employees, filed by the Intervenor’s company, filed a request for reexamination to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff Union and the Plaintiff 2, who was not the applicant for reexamination, filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the above decision of reexamination, and the decision of revocation of permission by the Labor Relations Commission did not directly affect the employees’ claim for reexamination or the decision of rejection of standing to sue under the Labor Standards Act, which is unlawful or unlawful.

3. In addition, the court below held that since the plaintiff 2 filed an application for review to the defendant for the approval decision of the above Regional Labor Relations Commission, the action for revocation of the adjudication of this case is unlawful. This part of the judgment of the court below is just, and this part of the judgment of the court below is also the case for revocation claim in the sense of seeking nullification.

The issue is that the decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission is a separate administrative disposition from the decision of the Regional Labor Relations Commission, and that the Labor Relations Commission Act is an independent administrative disposition, and that the National Labor Relations Commission may institute an administrative litigation against the decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission without any other procedure. Thus, the plaintiff 2 may institute an action for cancellation of the decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission as an interested party to the above decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission. However, the Labor Relations Commission Article 19-2 (1) of the Labor Relations Commission Act provides that "the action against the decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission shall be brought within 15 days from the date when the original decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission is served with the chairman of the Central Labor Relations Commission, who is the defendant, shall bring an action against the decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission, which is a provision concerning the requirements of pre-determination in the case of an administrative action (Article 82Nu448, Dec. 4, 1982).

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)