Where an arbitration award becomes invalidated, whether the parties to labor relations have legal interest to seek revocation thereof (negative)

Where the term of validity of an arbitration award has been established pursuant to the arbitration award itself, the arbitration award shall lose its validity with the lapse of its term of validity, and if such arbitration award has become invalidated, no party to labor relations shall have any legal interest in seeking the cancellation of such arbitration award, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining appearance of the arbitration award after the lapse of its term

Article 1 [General Administrative Disposition] Articles 2, 4, 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 4 of the former Trade Union Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996), Article 4 (see Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 8 (see Article 5 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 2 of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see Article 2 subparagraph 5 of the current Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act)

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3544 delivered on February 23, 1996) 94Nu9177 delivered on May 12, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 11199)

Yong-Nam University Medical Workers' Union

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

School Foundation Yong-Nam Private Teaching Institutes

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu37744 delivered on December 12, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed. The litigation costs are assessed against each party.

We examine ex officio.

Where the term of validity of an arbitration award has been established in accordance with the arbitration award itself, the arbitration award shall lose its validity with the lapse of the term of validity, and if such arbitration award has become invalidated, there are no legal interests in seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interests are infringed due to the remaining appearance of the arbitration award after the lapse of the term of validity (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu9177 delivered on February 23, 1996, 91Nu10503 delivered on May 12, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff reported the occurrence of an industrial dispute to the Daegu Metropolitan City Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul Metropolitan City Labor Relations Commission") on July 12, 1995, when it cannot be deemed that collective bargaining between the defendant's intervenor and the defendant's defendant's 1995 for negotiations on wages and collective agreements, and the plaintiff's application for review of the remaining content of the arbitration award was rejected to the Supreme Court on August 2, 1995, when it rendered an arbitration award on August 1, 1995, with which it was decided to refer to arbitration at the request of the head of Daegu Metropolitan City District Labor Relations Commission. The plaintiff's application for review of the remaining content of the arbitration award was rejected to the Supreme Court on the grounds that it was not allowed to join the collective agreement of 194. The plaintiff's application for review of the court below's remaining content of the arbitration award was rejected to the court below on the grounds that it was rejected to the court below's 196th arbitration award.

Thus, this case is deemed to have become illegal as the validity period of an arbitration award has expired while the court of final appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect, and it is dismissed for the reason that there is no interest in litigation as above, and the litigation costs are to be borne by each party in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 90 of the Civil Procedure Act through the first, second and third instances. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)