2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On April 28, 2014, the Defendant’s disposition of applying against the Plaintiff for payment of the difference in childcare benefits shall be revoked. 2. The purport of the appeal is revoked.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A) The Plaintiff, while working at the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, was granted childcare leave from November 3, 2012 to August 11, 2013. The Plaintiff filed an application for childcare leave from March 8, 2013 to September 2, 2013 for the said period as indicated in the following table, and was paid childcare leave according to the monthly ordinary wages calculated by the Defendant.

A person shall be appointed.

B) On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff delegated all of his/her authority on the application for childcare benefits to the attorney C and certified labor affairs consultant B.

C) On April 24, 2014, a certified labor attorney B, the Plaintiff’s agent, submitted an application to the Defendant on the ground that “the amount of bonuses, long-term continuous service allowances, meal allowance, transportation subsidy, and customized welfare card is included in ordinary wages, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the paid-in childcare benefits and the paid-in childcare benefits based on ordinary wages, including the above amount.” The Defendant is obligated to revoke the partial payment of the paid-in childcare benefits to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall pay the difference between the paid-in childcare benefits calculated on the basis of the ordinary wages, including bonuses, and the paid-in childcare benefits to the Plaintiff.” The Defendant submitted an application to the effect that “the payment of the difference between the paid-in childcare benefits and the paid-in childcare benefits, including D, 12 (13) agents including the Plaintiff.”

D) Attorneys C and certified labor affairs consultant B on April 25, 2014, as 13 representatives including the Plaintiff, etc., for the purpose of submitting the instant application to the Defendant is not a request for examination (in the process of undergoing the procedure for requesting an examination).

In addition, it has submitted a document stating that the return disposition is requested, in addition, it is not possible to request the guidance of the proceeding of the administrative litigation in the future.

E) On April 28, 2014, the Defendant: (a) notified an attorney C and certified public labor attorney B of the return of the application for the difference in benefits for childcare leave; and (b) returned the instant application except D’s application (hereinafter “return of the application”).

1. Related matters;

(a) An application for the difference in childcare leave with 13 persons, such as E, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "14.24 April 24);

(b) Request for return of an application: Attorneys C and one other (hereinafter referred to as "14.25 April 25, 14)

2. Having requested return of the applicant's application for the difference in the amount of temporary retirement benefits for childcare on April 25, 14. 14.25 with respect to the application for the difference in the amount of temporary retirement benefits submitted by you to Korea's branch office, including E, 13 persons who are already in progress of the procedure for the request for review on April 25, 14.

* A person who is already in progress in the procedure of a request for review: D3. In addition, administrative litigation shall be 90 days from the date when the original disposition is known, and one year from the date when the administrative litigation is made shall be able to be made.

【The facts without dispute over the ground for recognition】The entry of Gap evidence 1-1 (the same as Eul evidence 12), Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 6, 9, 11 (including the branch numbers where the branch numbers are not indicated among those with the branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion

With respect to the Plaintiff’s return of the instant application to the Plaintiff as the rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s application for temporary retirement for childcare on April 24, 2014, and the Defendant sought revocation of the rejection disposition, the Defendant asserts that the return of the instant application is merely based on the Plaintiff’s return request, and is not an rejection of the Plaintiff’s application for temporary retirement for childcare, and thus, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition. Even if the return of the instant application is deemed an administrative disposition, the Plaintiff’s application for payment of temporary retirement for childcare on April 24, 2014 was filed with the lapse of 90 days, which is the legitimate filing period, from September 11, 2013, the final payment date of temporary retirement

B. Determination

1) Since an administrative disposition, which is the object of an appeal litigation, is a disposition that directly and legally affects the rights and obligations of citizens among dispositions by an administrative agency as an exercise of public authority, an act that does not directly cause legal change to the rights and obligations of the other party or related persons, such as a mere de facto notification, does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu161, Sept. 14, 1982).

2) According to the above facts, the return of the instant application is merely a return of the instant application without undergoing a substantive examination as to whether the Defendant received a request from the Plaintiff for the return of the instant application, and the Defendant’s withdrawal of the application for childcare leave as of April 24, 2014.

Therefore, the return of the application in this case is merely a mere factual act upon the plaintiff's request, and it does not lead to a direct legal change in the existence of the right to request temporary retirement benefits for childcare against the plaintiff. Therefore, the return of the application in this case cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request for the return of the instant application is not a withdrawal of the application for childcare leave benefits as of April 24, 2014, but a request for the disposition of refusal against the above application for the proceeding of administrative litigation. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the return of the instant application is a rejection disposition against the application for childcare leave benefits as of April 24, 2014.

In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 10 and the entire pleadings, “B,” which is an agent of the Plaintiff, made telephone conversations with F, the Defendant’s employee on April 24, 2014, and “the purport of the application is the property administration of 13 ordinary wages, including the Plaintiff. If the form of an objection is not through legitimate procedures, such as a request for examination or administrative litigation, I would like to identify the corresponding Defendant’s opinion.” The Ministry of Employment and Labor’s request for an corresponding reply to the party against whom the peremptory period under the Ministry of Employment and Labor’s guidelines for request for review is too excessive.” On April 25, 2014, the Plaintiff’s request for a return of the instant application to the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff requested a guidance on the progress of the administrative litigation procedure, including the Plaintiff’s request for a return of the instant application, is difficult to be seen as having been naturally known from the entire purport of the facts and arguments recognized as the Plaintiff’s request and the Plaintiff’s return of the application.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Soo-sung

Judges Kim Gin-ran