부당해고구제명령의 성격과 재심판정취소소송에서의 소의 이익

Abstract

The Supreme Court had been denying the interest of the lawsuit in the revocation suit filed by an employee against a Labor Commission that dismissed the unfair dismissal remedy in case of that the laborrelationship ended due to reasons such as resignation, reaching retirement age, or expiration of the labor contract period. This judgment changed the existing Supreme Court precedent. It ruled that even if itbecame impossible for an employee to return to his/her original position, the interest to receive a relief order for the payment of a wage equivalent amount during the dismissal period was maintained and there was aninterest of a lawsuit to dispute the retrial of the Central Labor Commission, which dismissed the application for relief. It is fortunate that this has opened the way for employees whose labor contracts ended after being unfairly dismissed, especially fixed-term employees, to easily receive wages during the dismissal period. However, the Labor Commission is an administrative agency and the unfair dismissal relief system is only a system that allows employees who have been unfairly dismissed to dispute unfair dismissal through simple and prompt procedures and to receive provisional but immediate and effective relief. It is not a final judgment on legal disputes in labor contracts which is private contracts. Therefore, this point should be considered for the interests of remedy of the unfair dismissal remedy order. The remedy interest of the original reinstatement order shall be recognized when it is possible to return to the original position and when necessary, the remedy interest of the wage payment order shall be recognized when the unfairly dismissed needs to be paid wages during the unfair dismissal period due to difficulties in life.