The meaning of the party concerned who has standing to sue in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a decision on review of labor disputes.

In accordance with Article 38(2) of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996), the parties concerned are the trade union and the employer who were parties to the relevant arbitration review procedure.

Article 38 (2) of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996) (see Article 69 (2) of the current Labor Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act), Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dong-dong Trade Union (Law Firm citizen General Law Office, Attorneys Yoon Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Chairman of the National Labor Relations Commission

Gyeong Traffic Co., Ltd and 63 others (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu25409 delivered on December 3, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed. The lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal ex officio prior to judgment.

In accordance with Article 38 (2) of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act (amended by Act No. 5244 of Dec. 31, 1996; hereinafter the same), a party who has standing to sue to institute an administrative litigation against the National Labor Relations Commission's decision on the review of arbitration pursuant to Article 38 (2) of the former Trade Dispute Mediation Act shall be a trade union and an employer to which the relevant procedure for the review was a party. Accordingly, the plaintiff has standing to institute an administrative litigation against the arbitration award rendered by the competent Regional Labor Relations Commission with the joint plaintiffs, and the plaintiff has standing to sue to seek the cancellation of the relevant decision on the review of arbitration. According to the records, at the time of the Daegu Regional Labor Relations Commission's decision to submit it to arbitration upon the request of an administrative agency pursuant to Article 30 subparagraph 3 of the former Labor Dispute Mediation Act, the plaintiff or its employer did not report labor disputes, and the parties to the arbitration award and the procedure for the review of arbitration were not parties to the arbitration award with the validity of administrative disposition, and the plaintiff does not have separately filed a lawsuit against the parties's standing to institute of arbitration.

Nevertheless, the part concerning Articles 16 (2) and 31 of the collective agreement among the arbitration review decision of this case under the premise that the plaintiff has standing to sue shall be dismissed on the ground that there is no legal interest to seek revocation on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and the remaining part shall be judged on the merits, and the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to standing to sue. This part of the judgment below should be determined prior to the point of interest in the lawsuit. Since the judgment of the plaintiff's ground of appeal shall be omitted, and the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below shall be reversed, and it is sufficient for this court to render the judgment in accordance with the above factual relations, and the plaintiff's lawsuit

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)