Whether there is a legal interest in seeking the cancellation of a decision on re-adjudication where the part of the decision on re-adjudication to the original position becomes invalidated due to the termination of a contract of labor (affirmative)

Of the decision of re-examination on the order to return to the former position and the order to pay wages of the National Labor Relations Commission, where the order to return to the former position becomes invalid after the date of termination of the labor contract due to changes in circumstances, the specific obligation to pay wages arising from the order to pay wages for the period from the next day to the date of termination of the labor contract for which the order to reinstate was able to be implemented is retroactively extinguished even if the order to reinstate was invalidated due to changes in circumstances. Therefore, the employer bears public duties according to the decision of the Labor Relations Commission which includes the order to pay the amount equivalent to wages even after the termination of the labor contract

Article 27-3 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 10503 decided May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1890)

Mai Me Stock Company

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Defendant 1 and 7 Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the Defendant’s intervenor’s intervenor’s intervenor-appellant and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu24214 delivered on July 24, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On February 12, 191, when the Intervenor was dismissed on February 12, 191, when the period of the labor contract was determined until the completion of the steel materials installation works that the Plaintiff had been in force, and the Intervenor applied for dismissal on February 25, 1991, the court below held on April 25 of the same month that the Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Intervenor as to the Intervenor’s Intervenor was improper dismissal and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the amount equivalent to the wages from the next day to the date of the dismissal. On October 21, 1991, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s request for reexamination, which was recognized on October 21, 1991, but the Defendant applied for reexamination, which was recognized on December 30 of the same year as the completion of the original labor contract period, and the part of the order to return to the original position at the expiration of the period of the original labor contract was not feasible, and the amount equivalent to the portion of the order to return to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s original position should not be determined in accordance with the relevant decision procedure.

However, as the fact-finding of the court below, even if the part ordering the return to the original position among the decisions of the Regional Labor Relations Commission maintained by the defendant's reexamination decision became impossible due to changes in circumstances, this becomes invalid only after the end of the above labor contract due to changes in circumstances, unlike the case where the decision of the Labor Relations Commission becomes null and void retroactively at the time of the decision, and thus the specific obligation to pay wages arising from the above payment order during the period from the day after the date of dismissal until the termination of the above labor contract, which was able to perform the above order, is not retroactively extinguished even if the above order to pay wages was invalidated due to changes in circumstances, and thus, the plaintiff still has legal interest to seek cancellation of the above decision of the Labor Relations Commission, including the payment order of the above amount equivalent to the above wage, after the closure of the labor contract after the termination of the business, and thus, the plaintiff has legal interest in seeking cancellation of the above decision of the retrial. On the other hand, the court below's judgment is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in litigation, and this error has affected the conclusion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)