(a) Requirements for the Labor Relations Commission to order damages as provided in Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act;

(b) Whether to claim damages against workers under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act in the case of unfair dismissal, and whether to have the right to decide on the Central Labor Relations Commission.

A. The decision of the Labor Relations Commission concerning the claim for damages as stipulated in Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act shall be that the employer orders the employer to compensate for the damages, on the premise that the employer has inflicted damages on the worker in violation of the working conditions and that the employer has the right to

B. If a claim for monetary payment against an employer is based on the premise that dismissal is null and void due to a violation of Article 27(1) of the Labor Standards Act, the dismissal should first be determined as to whether the dismissal is null and void due to the violation of the above provision of the Labor Standards Act. Therefore, such a claim cannot be deemed as a claim for damages due to a violation of working conditions under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, and the National Labor Relations Commission has no authority

(a) Articles 23(b) and 27 of the Labor Standards Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Kim Chang-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu681 delivered on October 25, 1982

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged that the non-party, who worked as the printing hole of the plaintiff company, filed a claim for damages with the competent Labor Relations Commission on the ground that the non-party was subject to unfair dismissal against the plaintiff in violation of the working conditions, and the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a decision of this case on September 30, 1981, ordering the plaintiff to pay the original money on the ground that the non-party's application by the above non-party was well-grounded. The National Labor Relations Commission has the authority to deliberate and decide on the claim for damages due to the violation of the working conditions under Article 23 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and therefore decided that the above decision by the National Labor Relations Commission

However, if the working conditions stipulated in Article 22 of the Labor Standards Act are different from the facts, the worker may claim compensation for damages due to the violation of the working conditions, or may rescind the labor contract.

Paragraph (2) of Paragraph (1) provides that a worker may file a claim for damages with the Labor Relations Commission. Thus, if the Labor Relations Commission’s decision is about the claim for damages under Article 23 above, the decision should be based on the premise that the employer has inflicted damages on the worker in violation of the working conditions and that the worker has a claim for damages arising therefrom, and thus, the employer shall be ordered the employer to compensate for the damages. In addition, the decision of the court below does not state all the grounds for ordering the Plaintiff to pay the money at the original date on the ground that the above non-party has a claim for damages in accordance with the reason for the decision or the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, and it does not state any opinion as to whether the Plaintiff, an employer, violated either of the working conditions specified at the beginning of the labor contract of the above non

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the dismissal of the non-party above by the plaintiff is unfair on the premise that the dismissal of the non-party above by the non-party should be judged as justifiable under the Labor Standards Act, and that the dismissal is unfair without any justifiable reason. Thus, the plaintiff is obliged to pay the non-party the above non-party the amount of the judgment. According to the reasoning of this decision (Evidence No. 1), the National Labor Relations Commission decided that the non-party dismissed the non-party violated Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the amount of the original decision on the premise that the above dismissal is null and void because the non-party's claim for payment of the non-party's monetary amount violates Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act. Thus, if it is based on the premise that the dismissal is null and void as it is in violation of Article 27 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, it shall not be decided as the non-party's right to request compensation for damages under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act.

The court below held that the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission was a decision on the claim for damages due to the violation of the working conditions under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act without any deliberation or determination as to the grounds for ordering the plaintiff to pay money in the grounds for objection or the above decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is erroneous in the incomplete hearing or the lack of reasons, and the arguments on this point are justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)