[1] Whether the previous legal relations can be subject to litigation for confirmation (affirmative with qualification)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that a disciplinary action sought nullification of Gap's disciplinary action is unlawful since it is clear that two months have already elapsed since it was "no access to the company during the period of suspension from office for two months" and "no access to the company during the period of suspension from office" and "no access to the company during the period of suspension from office during the period of two months", and thus, there is no interest in confirmation, on the ground that the judgment of the court below was affirmed as to whether the disciplinary action, which actually has the substance

[1] Although a lawsuit for confirmation is permitted to eliminate risks or apprehensions in relation to the current rights or legal status, in cases where the current rights or legal status has been affected even in the past legal relations, and where it is recognized that obtaining a judgment on confirmation of the legal relations is an appropriate means to eliminate risks or apprehensions in the present rights or legal status, there is benefit in confirmation.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the disciplinary action sought nullification is unlawful, since it is clear that two months have already elapsed since the disciplinary action was "the prohibition against entry into the company during the period of suspension from office for two months" and "the prohibition against entry into the company during the period of suspension from office for two months", and the lawsuit seeking nullification of such disciplinary action is no interest in confirmation, and as long as Gap suffered any legal disadvantage that is not paid wages during the period of suspension from office due to a disciplinary action under the rules of employment of the company to which he belongs, a disciplinary action has the substance of the disposition of unpaid wages during the period of suspension from office, and this affects the current rights or legal status as to the existence of Gap's right to claim wages, even though the period of disciplinary action exceeds the period of suspension from office for a disciplinary action, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that there is a

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da4011 delivered on April 11, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1826) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1496 delivered on November 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 241)

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na1274 decided April 16, 2010

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Although a lawsuit for confirmation is permitted to eliminate the risk or apprehension with respect to the current rights or legal status, even in the past legal relations, if it has an impact on the present rights or legal status, and it is deemed appropriate means to obtain a judgment on confirmation of such legal relations in order to eliminate the risk or apprehension with respect to the present rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da401, Apr. 11, 1995; 2002Du1496, Nov. 26, 2002).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the instant disciplinary action, for which the plaintiff sought a nullity of the disciplinary action, is unlawful on the grounds that it is obvious that two months have already elapsed since it was "the prohibition of entry into the company during the period of suspension from office for two months (9 Sep. 21, 2009 and Nov. 20, 2009)" and "the prohibition of entry into the company during the period of suspension from office and suspension from office for two months during the period of disciplinary action."

However, according to the records, Article 63(1)3 of the Rules of Employment of the Defendant Company provides that the period of suspension shall not exceed three months, the status of the employee shall be maintained, the employee shall not be engaged in his/her duties, and the period of suspension from office shall not be paid for a certain period of time according to the case.”

Accordingly, as long as the Plaintiff suffered from legal disadvantage that could not receive wages during the period of suspension from office due to the instant disciplinary action, the instant disciplinary action has the substance of the disposition of unpaid wages during the period of suspension, which affected the Plaintiff’s current rights or legal status as to the existence of the Plaintiff’s right to claim wages. As such, even though the period of disciplinary action has expired, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as a result of the instant disciplinary action, may eliminate the risk or apprehension of his current rights or legal status.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the instant lawsuit was unlawful solely on the ground that the period of disciplinary action prescribed in the instant disciplinary action has expired. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interest of confirmation in litigation seeking nullification, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)