[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff
[Defendant, Appellee] Chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission (중앙노동위원회위원장)
[Intervenor for the Defendant, Appellee] ○○○○ Apartment Residents' Representative Council and 1 other
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Judgment 2018Nu56147, decided February 5, 2020
[Order]
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Background of the Case and the Judgment Below
A. Background of the Case
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts may be found.
1) Intervenor for the Defendant Shinwon TMC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Intervenor Shinwon TMC”) entered into an entrustment management contract for a multi-unit housing complex with Intervenor for the Defendant ○○○○ Apartment Residents' Representative Council (hereinafter “Intervenor Residents' Representative Council,” and the said apartment complex “the Apartment in this case”) around December 2014, with a contract period from December 16, 2014 to December 15, 2016.
2) On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Intervenor Shinwon TMC, setting the employment contract period from September 8, 2016 to December 31, 2016, being three months and twenty-three days (hereinafter “the Employment Contract in this case”), and worked as the management office chief at the Apartment in this case from the same date.
3) After the above entrustment management contract for the multi-unit housing complex expired, Intervenor Residents' Representative Council changed the management company and entered into an entrustment management contract with Aju Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Aju Management”) around January 2017, with a contract period from February 1, 2017 to January 31, 2019.
4) In the process of the management company for the Apartment in this case being changed from Intervenor Shinwon TMC to Aju Management, the Plaintiff's employment was not succeeded, and after February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff no longer worked as the management office chief of the Apartment in this case. Accordingly, on March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission for remedy against unfair dismissal, naming Aju Management, Intervenor Residents' Representative Council, and Shinwon TMC as respondents, seeking reinstatement to the original position and payment of an amount equivalent to wages for the period of dismissal.
5) On May 12, 2017, the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission dismissed the application for remedy against Aju Management and Intervenor Residents' Representative Council on the ground that they could not be deemed the Plaintiff's employer and thus lacked standing as parties, and ruled that the Plaintiff's application for remedy against Intervenor Shinwon TMC be rejected on the ground that the employment contract between the Plaintiff and Intervenor Shinwon TMC had terminated upon the expiration of its contract period. The Plaintiff filed an application for reexamination against this ruling, and on August 22, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff's application for reexamination for the same reasons as the initial ruling (hereinafter “the Reexamination Ruling in this case”).
6) On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking revocation of the Reexamination Ruling in this case (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”).
B. Judgment Below
The court below determined as follows.
Although the Employment Contract in this case expired on December 31, 2016, it was impliedly renewed from January 1, 2017, and regardless of whether the Plaintiff's employer was Intervenor Residents' Representative Council or Intervenor Shinwon TMC, the renewed employment contract terminated before April 3, 2019, the date on which oral argument concluded in the court below; therefore, there is no interest in litigation to contest the Reexamination Ruling in this case. Even assuming the Plaintiff's employer was Aju Management, the term of the employment contract should be deemed identical to the two-year term of the entrustment management contract for the multi-unit housing complex, and since the term of the employment contract also expired, at the latest, on January 31, 2019, when the term of the entrustment management contract expired, the interest in litigation to contest the Reexamination Ruling in this case has been extinguished.
2. Judgment of the Supreme Court
A. Relevant Legal Principles
Comprehensively considering the provisions, purpose, and intent of the Labor Standards Act (근로기준법) concerning the system of remedial orders against unfair dismissal, as well as the significance and legal effect of a remedial order for payment of an amount equivalent to wages, even where an employee, while disputing the validity of a dismissal by filing an application for remedy against unfair dismissal, becomes unable to be reinstated to the original position due to reaching mandatory retirement age or the expiration of the employment contract period, if there remains a need for the employee to receive an amount equivalent to wages for the period of dismissal, the interest in receiving a remedial order for payment of an amount equivalent to wages is maintained, and thus there remains an interest in litigation to contest the reexamination ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission that dismissed the application for remedy (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Judgment 2019Du52386, decided February 20, 2020).
B. As to This Case
Examining the hypothetical determination of the court below in light of the foregoing legal principles, it appears that, regardless of who the Plaintiff's employer was, even if reinstatement to the original position became impossible due to the termination of the employment relationship, there remains a need for the Plaintiff to receive an amount equivalent to wages for the period of dismissal, and to that extent, the Plaintiff's interest in litigation to contest the Reexamination Ruling in this case may be recognized.
Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the instant lawsuit on the ground that the interest in litigation to contest the Reexamination Ruling in this case had been extinguished. The judgment below thus contains an error that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the interest in litigation and failing to conduct the necessary examination. The ground of appeal pointing this out is well-founded.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further hearing and determination. This decision is rendered by the unanimous opinion of the Justices participating, as set forth in the Order.
Justices Min Yu-suk (Presiding Justice), Cho Jae-yeon, Lee Dong-won, Cheon Dae-yeop (Justice in charge)