1. A case that is dismissed, but is valid, unless it has been recognized by the Labor Relations Commission;

2. The nature of the agreement under which the workers and the employer have agreed to terminate the dispute through the mediation of the overseas labor center;

1. Even if a dismissal is made without obtaining the authorization of the Labor Relations Commission as stipulated in Article 27-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act with respect to the causes attributable to the worker, such dismissal shall not be null and void unless the existence of such causes is recognized in reality.

2. If the workers and the employer agreed to terminate the dispute through the mediation of an overseas labor force officer, it shall be deemed that the agreement has been reached between the parties by the intervention of an labor force officer, not the mediation, mediation, or arbitration under the Labor Dispute Mediation Act.

Article 27-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act, Articles 18, 22, and 30 of the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, Article 731 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Nu75 delivered on March 31, 1970

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2272,80Na813 delivered on May 20, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below held that the plaintiffs' immediate dismissal of the defendant, as the reasons attributable to the plaintiffs, was justified by concluding that the plaintiffs' request was made to work as dump truck driver driver at the multilateral air base construction business site in Saudi Arabiaa country and that they work as dump truck driver in the above country's large-scale driver's work site for the provisional period of time when the above country's large driver's license was granted, but the above country's large driver's license was requested temporarily to work as a general work site during the provisional period of time, but the employees' refusal to give the above work order and encourage other employees to act as dump driver, etc.

However, according to the records, it is only a provisional measure that allows the plaintiffs to work for the general work until the driver's license of the country of residence reaches the point of time (two days after the license was actually granted) and the plaintiffs agreed to it. As such, the judgment of the court below which did not regard the change of occupation is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, lack of reason, or interpretation of juristic act or contract clause, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by mistake.

2. According to Article 21 of the Labor Standards Act, an employer is prohibited from dismissing an employee without any justifiable reason, and Article 27-2 of the same Act provides that when an employer intends to dismiss an employee, an employer shall give an advance notice at least 30 days prior to dismissal, and if an employer does not give such advance notice, an employer shall be required to pay an ordinary wage for not less than 30 days, but if an employee is not dismissed due to any cause attributable to the employee, it shall not be required to obtain the recognition

As seen above, the dismissal is caused by the causes attributable to the plaintiffs, who are workers, so even if they did not give notice of dismissal or pay not less than 30 days ordinary wages, there is no error of law.

In addition, even if a dismissal is conducted without the Labor Relations Commission's approval as to the cause for the dismissal, as long as the existence of the cause for such dismissal is recognized, such dismissal cannot be deemed null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 69Nu75 delivered on March 31, 1970). As seen above, as long as the court below lawfully concluded that the dismissal was caused by the cause for the plaintiffs, it shall not be deemed null and void even if the Labor Relations Commission did not recognize the dismissal. Accordingly, the decision of the court below that made this conclusion is justified.

3. In addition, the decision of the court below concluded that the defendant agreed to settle the dispute by paying the plaintiffs a 30-day ordinary wage and bearing expenses for returning to Korea through the adjustment of the Korean Embassy Labor Institute in Saudi Arabia stationed. The purport of the decision is not the mediation, mediation or arbitration under the Labor Dispute Mediation Act, but the mediation or arbitration, and it can be understood that a settlement contract has been concluded between the parties by participating in the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as the presiding labor officer overseas and making efforts to settle the dispute. In this case where other circumstances do not peep, it is reasonable to view that all disputes arising from the dismissal under the above settlement contract have been concluded. Therefore, the court below's measures in this purport is acceptable, and even if it does not so, there is no room for damages arising from the dismissal, as long as the dismissal is attributable to the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)