2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates taxi transportation business with 60 regular employees.

B. On August 6, 2009, the Plaintiff’s worker D and E rejected the dispatch, and the dismissal was unfair, and on August 19, 2009, filed an application for remedy with the Defendant on August 14, 2009, alleging that the dismissal constituted unfair labor practices with respect to workers. On October 14, 2009, the Defendant rendered an order to remedy that unfair labor practices against the above workers are not recognized, but the dismissal is unfair (hereinafter referred to as “the first order”). At the same time, the Defendant issued a remedy order stating that “the employer of this case shall return the instant workers to the original position within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written ruling and pay the amount equivalent to wages that could have been received if the workers were to work normally during the period of the dismissal” (hereinafter referred to as “the First order”).

C. On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff’s worker F applied for relief on August 23, 2009, alleging that the order to suspend the work on board was unfair, and that it constitutes unfair labor practices dealing with disadvantages to the workers. On November 6, 2009, the Defendant did not recognize unfair labor practices against the above worker, but at the same time determined to the effect that the suspension of work on board is unfair (hereinafter referred to as “instant second determination”), and at the same time, the instant employer returned the instant worker to the original position within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written determination, and the Defendant paid the amount equivalent to the wages that could have been received if the worker had worked normally during the period from August 24, 2009 to October 29 of the same year, 209 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant order for remedy”).

D. On December 9, 2009 and December 21, 2009, the execution date of the order for remedy order of this case, the Defendant issued a reinstatement order of the first time until December 21, 2009, which is the execution date of the order for remedy of this case, but confirmed that the payment order equivalent to the wages did not have been implemented, and that the order for remedy of this case was issued on December 17, 2009, and that the second time of the order for remedy of this case was imposed on December 24, 2009, respectively. On February 2, 2010, the Defendant imposed a non-performance penalty of KRW 10,000 on the Plaintiff and the non-performance of the order for remedy of this case of KRW 2,50,000 on the non-performance of the order for remedy of this case.

E. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant determination Nos. 1 and 2 and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but each dismissal was made, and the lawsuit was brought against the said determination, but the said determination became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul in the evidence of Nos. 3 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Each of the instant relief orders must be specific so that the employer, who is the other party to the relief order, can perform the order. Since there is an error of law that does not specify the amount equivalent to the amount of the order, the instant disposition is unlawful on the premise that each of the instant relief orders is lawful.

② Although the Plaintiff intended to pay the amount equivalent to the wages to the instant workers, he refused to receive the said amount at the request of the said workers. After reinstatement, the Plaintiff embezzled public funds equivalent to the amount equivalent to the wages. On January 15, 2010, the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the financial institution was provisionally seized. The Plaintiff’s failure to pay the amount equivalent to the wages ordered under each of the instant relief orders is justified, and thus, the instant disposition of imposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

Article 33(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides, “The Labor Relations Commission shall impose a non-performance penalty not exceeding 20 million won on an employer who fails to comply with an order of remedy by the deadline for implementation after receiving the order of remedy (including a decision of reexamination, the contents of which are subject to the order of remedy; hereinafter

Such enforcement fine is an administrative indirect compulsory measure that requires an employer, who fails to comply with the order for remedy in order to promptly remedy workers and guarantee effectiveness of the order for remedy. It is desirable to specify the contents of the order in detail as the premise for imposition of enforcement fine. However, as to the order for remedy in this case, i.e., the payment of the amount equivalent to the wages that the employer could have received if the employer worked normally during the period of reinstatement or dismissal, i.e., the order for remedy in this case does not entail executory power, and i., it is realized by the employer’s act. Thus, it is not necessary to interpret excessively strictly regarding the specific contents of the order. The employer appears to have been able to calculate the amount equivalent to the wages that the employer could have received if the employer were to work normally during the period of non-performance of the order for remedy based on average wages, and the specific amount equivalent to the wages can not be determined by the Supreme Court’s order for remedy in a way that is ultimately consistent with the intention of the parties or civil procedure. The purport of the order for remedy in this case where the employer could not be determined for specific period.

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

If the worker of this case refuses to receive an amount equivalent to wages, the plaintiff can be exempted from liability for failure to comply with the order for remedy by depositing in the court ( difficult to deem that the defendant is liable to inform the plaintiff of the deposit procedure). The worker's wages should be paid in full directly to the worker, so the worker's tort against the worker cannot offset the worker's wage claim by his claim (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do2168 delivered on July 13, 199). In the situation where the plaintiff did not pay the amount equivalent to wages, it is difficult for the plaintiff to make it difficult for the worker of this case to use the worker of this case as the ground for the plaintiff's provisional attachment of the plaintiff's deposit claim, etc

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

A person shall be appointed.