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 is working at the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service and was on childcare leave from April 29, 201 to April 28, 2012. The Plaintiff was paid childcare leave according to the monthly ordinary wages calculated by the Defendant for the aforementioned period of childcare leave.

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

C. On April 24, 2014, B submitted an application (hereinafter referred to as “instant application”) to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s representative, on the ground that “The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the fixed amount of childcare leave benefits paid on the basis of the ordinary wage, including the above amount, given that the amount of bonus, long-term continuous service allowance, meal allowance, transportation subsidy, and customized welfare card is included in ordinary wage, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the fixed amount of childcare leave benefits paid on the basis of the ordinary wage, including the above amount. The Defendant is obligated to revoke the partial payment of the site for childcare leave benefits to the Plaintiff. The Defendant shall pay the difference between the childcare leave benefits calculated on the basis of the fixed ordinary wage and the childcare leave benefits paid to the Plaintiff, including bonus, etc., and 12 persons including D, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “13 persons including the Plaintiff, etc.”) including D, and also submitted the same application.

D. On April 25, 2014, C and B submitted a document stating that “13 applicants, such as the Plaintiff, etc., submitted to the Defendant is not the purpose of the request for examination, and is not the purport of the request for examination. (except for those who are in the process of the request for examination, the person who is in the process of the request for examination is not subject to request for the return disposition.” The document stating that “The request for guidance on the progress

E. On April 28, 2014, the Defendant notified C and B of the return of the application for the difference in the benefits for childcare leave, stating the following as the title, and returned the application by 12 persons including the Plaintiff, etc., excluding D applications (hereinafter referred to as the “return of the application”).

1. A. Related A. 13 applicants for the difference between childcare leave and childcare leave ("14.24. 24.) or. Requests for the return of applications: Attorneys C and 1 other ("14.25. 25. 14. 25. 13 applications for the difference between childcare leave and childcare leave and childcare leave ("14. 25. 14. 25. 14. 25. 14. 14. 25. 12 applications for the difference between childcare leave and childcare leave, including E, were requested by the applicant except those already under the procedure for the request for review, to return the difference. * A person already under the procedure for the request for review: D3. 90 days from the date the original disposition was known, and 1 year or less from the date the administrative litigation was made, and 1 year or less from the date,

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 10, Eul evidence 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8, 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 claim that the return of the instant application constitutes a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s application for temporary retirement benefits on April 24, 2014, and that the rejection disposition is unlawful, the Defendant asserts that the return of the instant application is merely based on the Plaintiff’s return request, and that the return of the application does not constitute a rejection of the Plaintiff’s above application, and that there is no interest in

B. Determination

1) Since an administrative disposition, which is the subject 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 the subject of an appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu161, Sept. 14,

2) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received a request from the Plaintiff for the return of the instant application (this seems to have withdrawn the application for childcare leave before April 24, 2014) and simply responded to the request without undergoing a substantive examination. Therefore, the return of the instant application merely constitutes a mere factual act upon the Plaintiff’s request, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act directly affects the existence of the Plaintiff’s right to apply for childcare leave and is an administrative disposition subject to appeal.

3) The Plaintiff’s request for the return of the instant application is not a withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s request for temporary retirement benefits on April 24, 2014. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the return of the instant application is a rejection disposition against the Plaintiff’s request on April 24, 2014. According to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 6, “The purport of the Plaintiff’s request is to identify the Plaintiff’s request for the return of temporary retirement benefits for childcare benefits based on 13 employees including the Plaintiff’s employees.” On April 24, 2014, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s request for the return of the instant application to the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s request for the return of temporary retirement benefits for childcare benefits from 20 years to 14 days to 20 days to 4 days to 20 days to 4 days to 4 days to 6 days to 6 days to 4 days to 6 days to 6 days to 6 days to 4 days to 6 days to 6 days to 6 days to request the Plaintiff’s request for the return of the instant application.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Hun-Ba

Judges Kim Gin-ran