Existence of the right to apply for replacement order to the administrative agencies of trade union members and legal obligations of the administrative agencies;

A lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission is a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality in a case where an administrative agency fails to take any administrative disposition within a reasonable period of time against a party’s application pursuant to statutes, and the illegal state is externalized and realistic. Thus, the party’s right of application is acknowledged as a premise for the existence of omission by the administrative agency. If an application is filed, the administrative agency must have the duty to respond to the request, i.e., the duty to respond to the request. If an administrative agency issues an order for improvement of an officer on the ground of Article 32 of the Trade Union Act, it is only meaningful to urge the exercise of the order for improvement of officer, and it is not an application based on the right of request recognized

Article 32 of the former Trade Union Act

Jeon Chang-tae

The Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City;

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

It is confirmed that the defendant's omission against the plaintiff's application for an order to improve the officer's performance on March 17, 1987 is illegal.

Judgment confirming that the costs of lawsuit are borne by the defendant

The plaintiff, as the cause of the claim and purport of the claim in this case, was held on January 17, 1987 by the election for the representative election of the non-party Bupyeong Passenger Bus Trade Union, but only three of the 13 representatives elected and the remaining 10 representatives were not elected, and thus, the union election commission declared that the second voting on January 18, 1987 should be held, and the normal operation of the union is difficult. Thus, the plaintiff, as a member of the union, requested an order for improvement of officers on March 17, 1987 pursuant to Article 32 of the Trade Union Act to the defendant as a member of the union, the plaintiff asserted that Article 322 of the Trade Union Act was violated, and that the defendant's omission against the request for improvement order on March 17, 1987 is illegal.

First, the defendant's lawsuit seeking the confirmation of illegality of omission is a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of illegality in a case where an administrative agency's failure to take any administrative disposition within a reasonable period of time despite the existence of a legal obligation to respond to a party's request under the law, and the illegal situation is externalized or realistic. Thus, the administrative agency which is subject to the lawsuit recognizes the party's right of request as a premise for the existence of omission, and if so, the administrative agency should have the duty to respond to the request, i.

However, Article 32 of the Trade Union Act provides that "the administrative agencies may order dissolution or improvement of officers upon the resolution of the Labor Relations Commission where the trade union is deemed to violate the labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes or to be detrimental to the public interest," and there is no provision that the parties recognize the application for maritime order or the right to request improvement of officers.

Therefore, if the plaintiff filed an application for an order for the improvement of executive officers with the defendant on the ground of Article 32 of the Trade Union Act, it is only meaningful to urge the defendant to exercise the order for the improvement of executive officers, and this is not an application based on the right of request recognized by the law, and the defendant, an administrative agency, does not

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of omission against the defendant's application for an order for improvement of executive officers is deemed to lack of the requirements for the lawsuit.

(q) The plaintiff, upon the application for the order for the improvement of executive officers of this case, demanded the defendant to improve the Lee Jong-hee of the above labor union, but there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the non-party voluntarily resigned from the above partnership workplace on September 7, 1987, and there is no benefit of lawsuit seeking confirmation that the omission by the defendant against the resigned officer is illegal)

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed as it is inappropriate without any further determination, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Sung-il (Presiding Judge)