2. The Defendant’s business suspension disposition against the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015 for one month.

The plaintiff is a legal entity that concludes an employment agency contract with job seekers who wish to be employed overseas and provides overseas job offerers, such as Canada and Australia, with the content that they arrange to conclude an employment contract.

A, B, and C (hereinafter “A, etc.”) who entered into an employment agency contract with the Plaintiff, filed a civil petition on or around May 2015, or around June 2015, on the ground that the Defendant had received the money from A, etc. and failed to comply with the demand for refund, and thus violated the Employment Security Act.

On August 25, 2015, the Defendant rendered a disposition of “one month of suspension of business” (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was granted the introduction fee, etc. prior to the conclusion of the labor contract in violation of the Employment Security Act in the course of arranging overseas employment to A, etc.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons, as to the non-contentious facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the disposition of this case.

Article 25 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Security Act provides that the job seeker's fee under Article 19 (3) of the Employment Security Act shall be paid after the employment contract is concluded, and limits the timing of receiving the fee which is not mentioned in the mother law. This is an unconstitutional provision beyond the scope of delegation by the mother law.

Article 19(3) of the Employment Security Act and the Public Notice of Overseas Wage and Job Placement Fees, etc. (Public Notice of Ministry of Labor No. 2010-4, Jan. 13, 2010; hereinafter “Public Notice”) are not imposed on the Plaintiff, etc., if the Plaintiff entered into an employment visa agency contract with A, etc., and vicariously received the speed of non-self-denunciation agency fee from A, etc.

The disposition of this case in fact led to the possibility of the plaintiff's discontinuance of business, and the plaintiff was regulated as a violation of the Employment Security Act.