If the National Labor Relations Commission has suspended the execution of an order for remedy, etc.

The provisions of Article 44 of the Trade Union Act and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act stipulate the principle of the so-called suspension of execution against an order for remedy, dismissal or review decision by the Labor Relations Commission, and they do not purport to allow the suspension of execution as prescribed by Article 10 (1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 3754 of Dec. 15, 1984). Thus, a person who files an administrative lawsuit seeking an order for remedy or rejection by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 42 of the Trade Union Act, or the revocation of a decision for reexamination by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 43 (1) of the same Act, may seek the suspension of execution against the above order for remedy, as long as the requirements under Article 10 (1) of

Articles 42, 43(1), and 44 of the Trade Union Act; Article 19 of the Labor Relations Commission Act; Article 10(1) of the former Administrative Litigation Act (amended by Act No. 3754 of Dec. 15, 1984)

Supreme Court Order 85F1 dated May 22, 1985

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Gangnam-nam Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Order 85Nu55 dated July 24, 1985

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of special appeal are examined.

A person who files an action to seek an order of remedy or a decision of rejection by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 42 of the Trade Union Act, or a revocation of the decision of reexamination by the National Labor Relations Commission under Article 43(1) of the same Act may seek suspension of execution of the above order of remedy, as long as the requirements under Article 10(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act exist. Each provision of Article 44 of the Trade Union Act and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act expressly state the principle of the so-called suspension of execution against the order of remedy or rejection or the decision of reexamination by the Labor Relations Commission, and it does not mean that the suspension of execution under Article 10(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act is not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 85f1, May 22, 1985). Thus, even after examining the records, there is no evidence to find that the suspension of the execution of this case by the court below is likely to seriously affect the public welfare, and there is no ground for

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)