[1] Where an arbitration award becomes invalidated, whether the parties to labor relations have legal interest to seek the revocation thereof (negative)

[2] The case holding that there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a wage portion among the arbitration review decision made by the National Labor Relations Commission

[3] Grounds for appeal against an arbitration award

[4] The case holding that any objection against the arbitration award shall not be permitted on the ground that the illegality of the arbitration award with respect to the union adjustment system which cannot be the object of the arbitration award has affected the arbitration award on the wage person, even though it did not affect the arbitration award on the wage person

[1] Where the term of validity of an arbitration award has been established by the arbitration award itself, the parties to labor relations shall not have any legal interest to seek the cancellation of the arbitration award, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining appearance of the arbitration award after the lapse of that term as long as the arbitration award has become invalidated.

[2] The case holding that since there is no room to claim ex post facto a difference in the amount of wages payable during the term of validity of an arbitration award which has already lapsed if the contents of the agreement were revised due to cancellation of an arbitration award on wages, the interests of workers shall be deemed as not just a de facto interest but a legal interest based on collective bargaining rights, etc.

[3] Objection against an arbitration award shall be limited to the case where it is found that the arbitration award was erroneous or unreasonable, and thus, the grounds that the arbitration award is unreasonable or unreasonable as unfavorable to either of the labor or management are not allowed.

[4] The case holding that any objection against the arbitration award on the wage person shall not be allowed on the ground that the arbitration award on the wage person merely becomes disadvantageous to either party to the labor or management, and that any objection against the arbitration award on the wage person shall not be allowed, on the ground that it does not constitute an unlawful or unreasonable act, or it does not constitute an unlawful act or a monthly right, even though the illegality of the arbitration award on the labor union person was affected by the arbitration award on

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 38 (2) of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see current Article 69 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) / [2] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 35 (2) of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see current Article 32 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 38 (2) of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see current Article 69 (2) of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act) / [3] Article 29 (2) of the former Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10503 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1890) / [1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 94Nu14148 delivered on October 17, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3544 delivered on February 23, 1996) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9177 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1119), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu676 delivered on September 30, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3321) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8944 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong192, 2423) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 194Nu13848 delivered on July 13, 1984

Korea Trade Union of Telecommunications Corporation (Law Firm Subdivision General Law Office, Attorneys Jeon Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission

Korea Telecommunication Corporation (Attorney Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu22810 delivered on June 13, 1996

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed. The lawsuit against the cancellation claim of the remainder except for the arbitration award against the wage person among the claims in this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by each party. The claim for the cancellation of the arbitration award against the wage person among the claims in this case shall be dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit in this part shall be borne by

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when collective bargaining between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor (hereinafter the Intervenor) for the conclusion of the wage agreement and the collective agreement in 195 were not concluded, the court below acknowledged that the National Labor Relations Commission raised the amount of wages on July 28, 1995 at the Intervenor’s request for arbitration within the limit of 5.7% based on the total amount of wages on July 28, 1995, and made an arbitration award concerning the scope of union members, union membership, full-time union members, union membership, cooperative funds, mutual aid, collective bargaining object, etc., and decided the effective date from January 1, 1995 to July 29, 195 as to the part of the wage agreement, and from July 29, 195 as to the collective agreement, the labor union full-time management system cannot be subject to arbitration award as it is not a labor dispute, and therefore, the arbitration award on the labor union full-time management shall be revoked on the ground that it affected the remaining part of the arbitration award in this case.

2. First, we examine ex officio.

Where the term of validity of an arbitration award has been established in accordance with the arbitration award itself, the arbitration award shall lose its validity with the lapse of the term of validity, and so long as the arbitration award has become null and void, the parties to labor relations shall have no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award, unless there are special circumstances to deem that any legal interest is infringed due to the remaining external appearance of the arbitration award after the lapse of the term of validity (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu9177, Feb. 23, 1996; 91Nu10503, May 12, 1992).

According to the records of the court below, the term of validity of the arbitration award of this case as to each of the remaining parts except for the part concerning wage figures among the arbitration award of this case is as recognized by the court below, and the part concerning the collective agreement of this case which is not specially provided in the arbitration award of this case was previously decided as to July 29, 1995, and the collective agreement of 1993 between the plaintiff and the intervenor can be known to the fact that the term of validity of the agreement has been two years from the date of conclusion of the agreement. Thus, there is no special circumstance that the term of validity of the arbitration award of the remaining parts was obvious that the case was in progress in this court, and that any legal interest was infringed due to the remaining external form of the arbitration award of this case.

Furthermore, with respect to an arbitration award on wages, the effective date of this part is as recognized by the court below as of January 1, 1995, and Article 35 (2) of the former Trade Union Act (repealed by Act No. 5244, Dec. 31, 1996) provides that a wage agreement with no term of validity shall be one year. Thus, this part of the arbitration award is obvious that the term of validity has already expired. However, if this part of the arbitration award is revoked and the contents of the agreement are modified, there is no room to claim ex post facto payment of the unpaid wage difference if there is any change in the contents of the agreement, the interest of workers shall be deemed as not a mere de facto profit but a benefit based on collective bargaining rights, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10503, May 12, 1992).

Therefore, among the claims in this case, there is a legal interest to seek the cancellation of an arbitration award on wages, but there is no legal interest to seek the cancellation of the arbitration award.

3. We examine the grounds of appeal No. 3 by the defendant and the intervenor.

Objection against an arbitration award shall be limited to cases where the arbitration award is deemed to be unlawful or inconsistent with the monthly interest. Therefore, an objection against the arbitration award shall not be allowed merely on the ground that the arbitration award is simply disadvantageous to either labor or management (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu11883, Jan. 11, 1994).

Therefore, even though the violation of the arbitration award with respect to the union adjustment system which cannot be the object of the arbitration award, such as the time of the original arbitration award, affected the arbitration award on the union adjustment system, it shall be deemed that the arbitration award on the union adjustment system is unfair or unreasonable, and thus, it shall not be deemed that it was unlawful or unreasonable, and it shall not be deemed that it was unfair or unreasonable, because it was unfavorable to either labor or management, and (it shall not be deemed that the arbitration award on the union adjustment system has influenced the arbitration award on the wages of a government-invested institution, based on the level of wages of a government-invested institution, the rate of wage increase in the year 1995, the compilation of the intervenor's budget in the year 195, the details of the government-invested institution's budget compilation in the year 195, and any objection thereto shall not be allowed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that revoked the arbitration award on the wage seal is unlawful is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for objection against the arbitration award. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award on each part of the claim in this case except for the arbitration award on wage class among the claims in this case is unlawful since the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award has no interest in the lawsuit at the expiration of the validity period of the arbitration award during the final appeal, this part of the judgment of the court below is reversed as it is not maintained in this respect, and this part of the judgment of the court below is decided directly by this court, and this part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and this part of the judgment below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal since the part revoking the arbitration award on wage class among the judgment of the court below is unlawful, and this part of the judgment of the court below is also reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, and it is sufficient for this court to render a judgment with the facts established by the court below. As seen above, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the arbitration award on wage class is dismissed, and this part of the lawsuit costs are to be borne by the plaintiff and this part

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)