The nature of the Labor Relations Commission's decision on whether there is a cause attributable to the worker under Article 28 (4) of the former Labor Standards Act (Act No. 1961, Dec. 4, 1961)

Article 28 (4) of the former Labor Standards Act (Act No. 286 of May 10, 53), or Article 3 (3) of the Act on Special Measures for the Payment of Retirement Allowances for Employees of Government-Managed Enterprises (Abolition) is not an administrative disposition.

Articles 28(4), 88, 89, and 90 of the former Labor Standards Act (Act No. 1961, Dec. 4, 1961)

Korea Coal Corporation

Labor Relations Commission in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Mabalk et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 62Nu228 delivered on December 20, 1962

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The principal office shall be dismissed.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant and the defendant's assistant intervenors is examined.

According to the original judgment, since the judgment of the court below on the existence or absence of a cause attributable to the employee of the Labor Relations Commission constitutes an act of confirming facts, it is not an administrative disposition stipulated in Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and therefore, this lawsuit is unlawful since the defendant's disposition is not the object of administrative litigation, and it can be interpreted that the government-managed enterprise has a duty to pay dismissal allowances if the cause of dismissal is attributable to the employer within the period of display, but if the Labor Relations Commission determines that there is no cause attributable to the employer as a result of objection, it should be interpreted that the employer has a duty to pay dismissal allowances. Thus, the determination of the Labor Relations Commission does not simply end the determination on the existence of a cause attributable to the government-managed enterprise, but it is not an act that causes changes in the rights and obligations of the parties, and it is not an act of mere confirmation, and it cannot be viewed that the employer's right of dismissal is not an act of disposal under Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act but an act of disposal under the Labor Standards Act before the dismissal of the employee.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum leapbal leapbal leaps