A. Whether the Labor Relations Commission's review or review decision on accident compensation has the nature of an administrative disposition (negative)

(b) Relationship between the legal nature and the accident compensation claim provided for in Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act concerning the action against determination by the Central Labor Relations Commission and the examination or arbitration decision by the Labor Relations

A. Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act does not directly stipulate the review or arbitration decision under Articles 88 and 89 of the same Act as the subject of a lawsuit, and the purport that a civil lawsuit may be brought regardless of the contents of the review or arbitration is stipulated, the decision of the Labor Relations Commission on the matters concerning accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act is not an administrative disposition, but an action with the nature of recommendation, and the decision is merely an action with the nature of recommendation, and it does not constitute an administrative disposition that affects the rights and obligations of the party concerned, and this is not different from the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission on the decision of the Local Labor Relations Commission, and thus, the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is unlawful.

B. The provisions of Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act concerning the action on the determination of the National Labor Relations Commission, such as the approval of the Labor Relations Commission on the payment of allowances during the period of suspension under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act or the reexamination disposition of the National Labor Relations Commission that revokes such approval, shall be the provisions concerning the requirements for pre-determination in cases where an administrative action is brought against the Labor Relations Commission which has the nature of an administrative disposition such as the case directly affects the existence of the claims for payment of allowances between the parties concerned, and the claim for accident compensation shall not have the effect of binding the parties concerned on the examination or arbitration of the Labor Relations Commission. Thus, the examination and arbitration decision of the National Labor Relations Commission concerning the claim for accident compensation

A. Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act: Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act; Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 66Nu52 delivered on June 21, 1966

Attorney Lee Ho-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu149 delivered on August 10, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

First, Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 88 and 89 of the Labor Standards Act do not directly stipulate the review or arbitration as an object of a lawsuit, and the purport that a civil lawsuit may be brought regardless of the contents of the review or arbitration is stipulated. Thus, the decision of the Labor Relations Commission on matters concerning accident compensation under the Labor Standards Act is not an administrative disposition but an advisory act (see Supreme Court Decision 66Nu52 delivered on June 21, 1966). Accordingly, the court below's decision on the review or arbitration is not an administrative disposition which affects the rights and obligations of the related parties, regardless of the fact that the decision of the Labor Relations Commission is a prerequisite for a civil lawsuit, and it does not differ from the decision of the Central Labor Relations Commission on the determination of the Central Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the lawsuit on the premise that the above decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is an administrative disposition, which is just and acceptable, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal nature of the Central Labor Relations Commission's theory like the lawsuit.

In the case of suspending a business due to a cause attributable to the employer, the precedent of the theory of the lawsuit is related to the decision of the Labor Relations Commission on whether or not to pay the shutdown allowance, and it is not appropriate in this case.

According to points 2 and Article 19-2 of the Labor Relations Commission Act amended on December 31, 1980 (Act No. 3352), the action against the determination of the National Labor Relations Commission shall be brought within 15 days from the chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission as the defendant. The execution of the decision as to the institution of a lawsuit pursuant to this Act shall not be suspended. The above period shall not be a peremptory term. The above provision provides that the above period shall not be a peremptory term. The above provision provides that the approval of the Labor Relations Commission on the payment of allowances during the period of suspension under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act or the review of the National Labor Relations Commission which has the nature of the administrative disposition such as the case in which the parties concerned directly affect the occurrence of the payment of allowances between the parties concerned, and the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission's review and arbitration does not have the effect of binding upon the parties concerned in this case's claim for accident compensation, and therefore, the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission's review and arbitration of this case shall not be subject to criticism in the judgment below is justified.

No. 3, as in the lawsuit of lawsuit, the disposition of the Minister of Labor, which was not the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission as stipulated in Article 19 (1) of the Labor Relations Commission Act, is the same as the disposition of the Regional Labor Relations Commission, even if the disposition of the Minister of Labor, which was not the disposition of the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission, is the same as the disposition of the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission, that is, the ground for the theory as to whether the disposition of this case goes through legitimate procedures in the case of civil action for accident compensation by the deceased Kim-hee's survivors

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)